Cathy Young examines the Los Angeles County seal dustup and concludes (correctly, I believe) that the ACLU’s strategy of waging large battles against small “offenses” is at best dubious:
If you look closely at the Los Angeles County official seal
20 Replies to “A cross to bear”
america couldn’t last forever. might as well go out with a bang.
Sorry Jeff, gotta disagree.
Trying to have your child avoid being compelled to pledge allegiance to a deity EVERY DAY is quite different than nitpicking a microscopic cross, Jeff. The historic symbolim in the seal also more aptly fits the definition of “ceremonial deism,” whereas the pledge, by virtue of its recent, mid-century addition for the express purpose of validating this country’s belief in God vs. an atheistic Soviet Union, does not.
Newdow is right.
Go ahead, make your joke …
No joke to make. But there’s no compulsion involved with the Pledge. I’m not going to go over it all again—that’s what 2 years ago was for—but here’re some of the posts and discussions that the 9th Circuit’s Pledge ruling elicited back then:
If you’re going to San-Fran-Cisco….You’re likely either nuts or stoned…
Pledge Push (with some stuff thrown in about why VodkaPundit is wrong)
ACL-U-gotta lot of ‘splainin’ to do…
A few final thoughts on the Pledge dustup…
I know this is kicking the hornets’ nest, but that the Pledge isn’t compulsory isn’t much of an argument to include God in it.
All that means is you can refuse to pledge allegiance and be considered unpatriotic for religious reasons.
Really, I’m not going into this again—there’s plenty in the links above, where all the nuances were explored—but I will say that “discomfort” should not be legislated against unless the injury is truly injurious, and the behavior causing it truly coercive.
Lobby congress to have the law repealed; that’s fine. I may even support it, if I can be bothered to care. But judicial fiat based upon the stipulation that the language is coercive is wrong wrong wrong wrong. It is the. worst. precedent. we. can. set.
Don’t know how to put it more clearly than that. You’re setting yourself up for at PC culture of epic epic epic epic proportions.
But all of these things (and more) are discussed in the threads linked to in my previous comment.
And reciting the Pledge automaticly makes you patriotic? Do you sing out load evey word of the “Star Spangled Banner” when it is played prior to every sporting event in America? How many people around you are not singing? I’m sure they feel scandalized by the public rebuke they receive from their fellow sports fans! Right.
I grew up in an era when we said the Pledge and the Lord’s Prayer at the start of the school day, and we were taught to respect the right of others not to participate in such recitings. That’s what freedom and liberty means, but imposing on others your views is just the opposite.
Ok, you don’t have to get into it again, I’ll just post and you can ignore me.
RE: “but I will say that “discomfort” should not be legislated against unless the injury is truly injurious, and the behavior causing it truly coercive.”
If you don’t think standing small children up in a group setting is coercive, where their only option to refuse is a public denial of God in front of their peers, then you are sorely off base, or at least playing semantics.
Maintaining the pledge is merely a matter of societal comfort (which has some merit), not a legal argument.
I understand your fears about a pc culture gone amok, but the pledge is a rather unique case, in that it is foisted upon minors who are largely incapable of standing up for themselves, and who are always at a point in their lives where they’d prefer to stick a fork in their eye rather than expose themselves to ridicule – or worse – which is the typical treatment that atheists receive as adults, nevermind amongst a gaggle of evil children.
If an atheist has a strong and abiding love for his or her country, yet thinks this whole God thing is a bunch of ridiculous horseshit, then you may understand why the daily devotional to the US may be better off with the religious requisite. remember – I make this distinction because this daily peldge involves children that are in a learning environment.
Newdow may be individually manipulating his status as a parent in THIS case (though He feels injured, not sure about his kid), but if you don’t think that an individual atheist parent has a legitimate grievance just because atheists are a small minority, then please, let’s change the pledge to say “under Jesus.” After all, there are MORE atheists in this country than there are Jews.
As for Forbes’ statement: “we were taught to respect the right of others not to participate in such recitings.”
Well let me know where you live, because when I was growing up, the kids beating my ass because I was small and wore glasses didn’t get the fucking memo. “God forbid” they would have discovered that I was an atheist.
Just saying, this issue is more open to interpretation than it just “feels right.” Liberals think that love and harmony “feels right,” even when an Islamofascist has a gun to their head.
You can’t be serious. Nevermind. I’ve discussed this all before. If you’re actually interested, you’ll read through the threads I provided.
Holy crap, Bill, I’m lost. The latest entry in your blog (which I love, BTW) refer’s to “God’s creatures”. Why can’t atheists treat the “under God” phrase to be a reference to a general sense of “under goodness” or “under Mother Nature”.
Why is it that most atheists (not agnostics, though), foist their NON-religist beliefs on the rest of us far worse than most Mormons, Evangelical Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists.
One of my classmates in elementary school was a Jehovah’s Witness. They don’t believe in paying homage to secular institutions in any way, shape, or form. So when we’d say the pledge, Ben would just stand respectfully, hands by his sides, and remain silent.
I always thought his example was an excellent one, and no legislation was required to bring it about.
Jeff: apologies if this constitutes not respecting your wishes to not discuss the issue further. I’m done now.
jeff, I’ll read through the threads, but yes, I’m serious.
JFH – it’s a cliche – ceremonial deism. I’m not serious when I mention God. And you are in an alternate universe with this: “Why is it that most atheists (not agnostics, though), foist their NON-religist beliefs on the rest of us far worse than most Mormons, Evangelical Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists.”
You must be kidding, right? Can I get some stats on that? Most atheists i know keep their mouth shut about it in public, including me. Almost every time I’ve ever brought it up in polite (heh) company I’ve been met with outright fear or revulsion. From people that are deists, but not religious in a hardcore sense.
I dont have a huge problem with the pledge, but I can see how someone genuinely would.
Beck – “So when we’d say the pledge, Ben would just stand respectfully, hands by his sides, and remain silent.”
That is a good example – but it takes a boatload of courage in a high pressure setting. I don’t think children with alternate beliefs should be forced to make that stand at the price of social acceptance.
I haven’t heard one person give me the go ahead for changing “under God” to under Jesus, by the way, or explain how that is somehow worse than asserting belief over non-belief to a population that is larger than the jewish population in the US.
Once again, objective analysis wins over “it just feels right” or “ because that’s the way it’s been done since I’ve been alive.” there are so many parallels to discrimination that you would categorically affirm as relevant, it’s stunning. You just have to think about it.
Some of us have thought about quite a lot already. And written on it quite extensively. And answered every argument you’ve posted here. And are waiting for you to read through the threads and attempt to answer the counter arguments.
Remember, this is not about “under God” so much as it is about judicial intervention, phatic speech, de minimis, the establishment clause, “coercion”, slippery slopes, the ontology of words, injurious language, etc.
Yeah, but Jeff, c’mon man! It’s for the children. How can you not be for the children? He even put it in bold letters for you.
Okay, in all seriousness, Bill, I think you are wrong in this one. You assume that your view of the existence of God is the correct one, and that everyone else must be paying homage to some imaginary being, thus we are somehow hurting our children.
But you have to teach kids something. If we avoiding teaching them anything that hadn’t been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, we’d teach them nothing. Not evolution, not Newtonian physics, certainly not history or philosophy or psychology.
One thing that happens in the United States (thank God!) is that we also teach the ability to question inherited wisdom, and think for ourselves, and re-evaluate in the light of new information.
There is nothing about teaching a child a pledge in youth that includes the words “Under God” that makes it forceful indoctrination. Nothing.
I clearly remember doing the Pledge in grade school, but I can’t remember that we were all giving each other the VSE to ensure we were all in compliance. But then I wasn’t paying attention in school much, back in those days.
If refusing to recite is public denial of God for you, Bill, I suggest that you’ve got issues that you might want to explore. You’ve got far too many things wired together. And I mean this all in a nice, polite way.
I’d like to suggest that a great deal of youthful angst in this area has been preloaded by overly righteous parents.
Jeff, I’m surprised you haven’t pointed out that several of your previous posts completely debunked this “unconstitutional” nonsense.
‘Cause it sure would save a lot of posting space if our atheist/agnostic/confused friends could do us all the favor of actually reading the smoking ruins of their arguments before presenting them yet again.
Although I would like to state for the record that I am not really comfortable with deciding constitutional questions based on the hurt feelings of 5 year olds.
I thought he covered that quite well with — there’s plenty in the links above, where all the nuances were explored —, but I can read between the lines, underneath the lines, and where the lines ought to have been to begin with.
Slarti,
Yup. At least five times by my count, which was my point, as I facetiously attempted to suggest same yet again. I guess if I’m gonna be a smartass, I should at least be clear about it !
Bill, for the record, I grew up in Syracuse, NY. And as to small kids, kids with glasses, or anyone else for that matter, when did adolescents ever have a “good” excuse for “beating someone’s ass.” Who didn’t get picked on, in one way or the other? I think it’s called childhood, and growing up.
Back to original topic: Now that the cross is gone, let’s dump ‘Angel’ from the name of the city, and we can wind up with ‘Loses’… which is what happens to part of our American culture every time these loonies come out of the woodwork.
Wow…I just realized: San Francisco would have to lose the “San”, wouldn’t it. Now, a host of new American cities would require new signs at the city limits:
Barbara
Diego
Clara
Monica
Rosa
Cruz
Fe
Antonio
Petersburg
Paul
Louis
Francisco
Jose
Juan Capistrano
Louis Obispo
Augustine
Jacinto
And a whole lot of schools would have to be renamed. Not to mention, school systems.
Not as a direct consequence of taking God out of the pledge, certainly. But if you’re going to be as silly as those advocating that action seem to be, you may as well pursue it to its logical conclusion, no?