I wrote about the Pledge in I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution. It's amazing that right-wingers defend a phrase added in the 1950s as if it were holy writ.
According to a poll by the First Amendment Center in 2003, more than 2/3 of Americans don't want lines of the Pledge censored; they want it left as it is. So much for some sort of right-wing conspiracy: with such an overwhelming majority view, this goes way beyond the "right wing".
Well, the nation is already half conservative to begin with. With the right-wing's well-oiled propaganda machine demonizing anyone who questions God as un-American, it's not surprising that "under God" has majority support.
Nevertheless, the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority, as I said. If Christian Americans want to make the phrase legal, let them (try to) amend the Constitution.
Way too many times I've heard people deal with the fact that others have different opinions by making up and claiming some sort of brainwashing conspiracy (the reference to the "well-oiled machine" that has brainwashed the opponents.... I saw some "demonizing" in your message, and it appeared to come more from you than those you were attempting to tarr. We can do better than that.
As for my view, I don't agree with the hullabaloo that got the God line added. Likewise, I don't support the intolerance and hate that leads Michael Newdow in the other direction. In other words, I'm not impressed with activists on either side.
As a conservative, I don't think government really has a place in defining marriage at all. It's simply not any sort of Constitutional issue. I know this puts my at odds with many many other conservatives.
Who says it was "intolerance and hate" that led Michael Newdow to sue? What if someone filed the same lawsuit but eliminated whatever it was you consider intolerant and hateful? As a Supreme Court justice, how would you rule on the merits of the case--on the First Amendment issue? Quit pretending that our attitudes are the primary issue and take a constitutional stand.
I got that impression (hate and intolerance) from listening to Newdow himself, in his own words. He has a real problem with expression of religious views that don't fit his particular religious doctrine. I myself just don't care. I don't get bent out of shape because others have different religions. The Pledge of Allegiance could include God, Allah, Gitche-Manitou, Goddess, or no such mention at all. It's not a big deal: I would not waste people's time and money by filing frivolous lawsuits to get such things to fit my exact preferences.
It's like the situation with the stone (marble?) Ten Commandments in the courtroom in the deep south. It was a waste of money and not right to put it there. Likewise, it is a waste of money and not right for religious bigots to sue now to get it removed. If you don't like it (or don't like that it's NOT there), just ignore it.
You tend to? The Pledge is an issue about freedom of (and from) religion, not free speech. Despite criticizing "activists" on both sides, it sounds like you'd side with those who would impose their God on others. Correct?
If you're such a free-speech supporter, would you support the right of a student to emphatically say "without God" instead of "under God" during the Pledge? Why or why not?
The constant drumbeat of messages telling us we're a Christian nation is certainly harming people. Muslim Americans get assaulted as terrorists. Homosexuals are demonized as sinners. Unbelievers can't run for high office and win.
By reciting the Pledge and posting the Ten Commandments, we encourage people to accept these outcomes as natural. How many times has a conservative Christian told a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist: "If you don't like our country, leave it"? More times than we could count, undoubtedly.
I'm sorry, I did not answer your question earlier: "If you're such a free-speech supporter, would you support the right of a student to emphatically say "without God" instead of "under God" during the Pledge? Why or why not?"
I'd support that, short of him screaming it in other's faces (which becomes an issue of rudeness or disrupting class). I'd give him the same right to proselytize others to his faith.
I'm pretty sure Newdow sued, and the case was judged, on freedom-of-religion grounds, not freedom-of-speech grounds. As Wikipedia noted:
Newdow is most famous for a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf.
You're about the only one who would defend my hypothetical student. That's because the conservative establishment isn't defending freedom of speech. It's defending what it perceives to be freedom of religion--i.e., its freedom to use schools to indoctrinate people in its religion.
14 comments:
The link is broken.
I made a mistake, but I fixed it.
I wrote about the Pledge in I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution. It's amazing that right-wingers defend a phrase added in the 1950s as if it were holy writ.
According to a poll by the First Amendment Center in 2003, more than 2/3 of Americans don't want lines of the Pledge censored; they want it left as it is. So much for some sort of right-wing conspiracy: with such an overwhelming majority view, this goes way beyond the "right wing".
Well, the nation is already half conservative to begin with. With the right-wing's well-oiled propaganda machine demonizing anyone who questions God as un-American, it's not surprising that "under God" has majority support.
Nevertheless, the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority, as I said. If Christian Americans want to make the phrase legal, let them (try to) amend the Constitution.
Way too many times I've heard people deal with the fact that others have different opinions by making up and claiming some sort of brainwashing conspiracy (the reference to the "well-oiled machine" that has brainwashed the opponents.... I saw some "demonizing" in your message, and it appeared to come more from you than those you were attempting to tarr. We can do better than that.
As for my view, I don't agree with the hullabaloo that got the God line added. Likewise, I don't support the intolerance and hate that leads Michael Newdow in the other direction. In other words, I'm not impressed with activists on either side.
As a conservative, I don't think government really has a place in defining marriage at all. It's simply not any sort of Constitutional issue. I know this puts my at odds with many many other conservatives.
Who says it was "intolerance and hate" that led Michael Newdow to sue? What if someone filed the same lawsuit but eliminated whatever it was you consider intolerant and hateful? As a Supreme Court justice, how would you rule on the merits of the case--on the First Amendment issue? Quit pretending that our attitudes are the primary issue and take a constitutional stand.
I got that impression (hate and intolerance) from listening to Newdow himself, in his own words. He has a real problem with expression of religious views that don't fit his particular religious doctrine. I myself just don't care. I don't get bent out of shape because others have different religions. The Pledge of Allegiance could include God, Allah, Gitche-Manitou, Goddess, or no such mention at all. It's not a big deal: I would not waste people's time and money by filing frivolous lawsuits to get such things to fit my exact preferences.
It's like the situation with the stone (marble?) Ten Commandments in the courtroom in the deep south. It was a waste of money and not right to put it there. Likewise, it is a waste of money and not right for religious bigots to sue now to get it removed. If you don't like it (or don't like that it's NOT there), just ignore it.
Oh, and the first amendment issue? I tend to side with freedom of speech.
You tend to? The Pledge is an issue about freedom of (and from) religion, not free speech. Despite criticizing "activists" on both sides, it sounds like you'd side with those who would impose their God on others. Correct?
If you're such a free-speech supporter, would you support the right of a student to emphatically say "without God" instead of "under God" during the Pledge? Why or why not?
Much of my website exists to document the problem with stereotypical words and images. See The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence for how the accumulation of adverse symbols can hurt people.
The constant drumbeat of messages telling us we're a Christian nation is certainly harming people. Muslim Americans get assaulted as terrorists. Homosexuals are demonized as sinners. Unbelievers can't run for high office and win.
By reciting the Pledge and posting the Ten Commandments, we encourage people to accept these outcomes as natural. How many times has a conservative Christian told a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist: "If you don't like our country, leave it"? More times than we could count, undoubtedly.
There is also a freedom of speech issue. Newdow does not like the Pledge because it is speech involving a religion he does not like.
You said: "Much of my website exists to document the problem with stereotypical words and images"
That is fine. Unlike Newdow and others, you aren't engaging in frivolous lawsuits.
I'm sorry, I did not answer your question earlier: "If you're such a free-speech supporter, would you support the right of a student to emphatically say "without God" instead of "under God" during the Pledge? Why or why not?"
I'd support that, short of him screaming it in other's faces (which becomes an issue of rudeness or disrupting class). I'd give him the same right to proselytize others to his faith.
I'm pretty sure Newdow sued, and the case was judged, on freedom-of-religion grounds, not freedom-of-speech grounds. As Wikipedia noted:
Newdow is most famous for a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf.
You're about the only one who would defend my hypothetical student. That's because the conservative establishment isn't defending freedom of speech. It's defending what it perceives to be freedom of religion--i.e., its freedom to use schools to indoctrinate people in its religion.
Post a Comment