The interesting part of that, Tom, is that "under God" was not
originally in the Pledge of Allegiance, I remember when it was added in
the 1950's, and even as a kid I was uncomfortable with the change. Also
schools do not make things like that optional, at least not when I was a
kid. And it does conflict with the concept of separation of church and
state. But then "In God We Trust" has been on our coins forever, and no
one has complained about that.
I just had jury duty. I found the requirement to swear on the bible
uncomfortable as a professed Buddhist/Taoist. Any one who was a Jew,
Muslim, Atheist, etcetera had to feel even more uncomfortable because
their beliefs tell them that other beliefs are wrong. One woman
blatantly refused to do so, caused quite a little ruckus in fact.
If you are going to claim separation of church and state, the state
should not keep invoking religious values, certainly not particular
ones. Especially when it is so easy to change it to something like "I so
swear by whatever I hold sacred" Which could be his family, his word,
his sense of honor, or any faith he may adhere to. Besides that very few
of us today think we are going to go to some particularly gruesome
protestant hell if we tell a lie, even if we do so while holding a bible.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Tom C wrote:
I agree with your statement Frank, it's a technicality but it's
missing the point, I believe. I know someone will likely beg to differ.
Let's take one case the ACLU is involved with... to the best of my
recollection. The case in California (I believe... I'm typing from
memory not the transcript), where an athiest has sued a school
district because his elementary school age daughter is made to feel
uncomfortable when the Pledge of Alegiance is said because it contains
the phrase 'under God'.
Now the way I see it, no one is forcing the child to say the
'pledge'. No one is forcing the child to put her hand over her
heart. No one is forcing her to believe in God. No one is forcing
the child to accept a particular doctrinal point of view or put her
name on a church enrollment.
Why should the majority be forced to change for this one little girl?
Is this the only and last time in life she will be confornted with
views or actions that are at odd with her own beliefs. It's laughable.
Should everyone be forced to conform to to this one child's (likely
father's) sensitivities?
It's an example of how wrong-headed and upside down things have
become. Tolerance is supposed to work in both directions, isn't it?
Tom C.
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:17:06 -0400
On 10/17/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it could be argued... From where I sit, it's the people that
want 'no
> rules whatsoever', that always argue their rights are being
violated, when
> in fact they are violating the rights of the majority. The ACLU is
a prime
> example of an organization that tramples on the rights of the majority.
> Yes, I believe minorities have rights...
in a free and democratic society, the "majority" (whoever they may be
and however they may be ascertained) can have no rights.
only individuals have rights.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
