I can understand that. My using that particular example was not at all
meant to evoke a disussion on the separation of church and state. It was
meant to display how the ACLU was taking up a cause that was ridiculous, in
that since all of us are different we should have no expectation that the
world should/would adopt a certain course just not to injure our particular
sensitivities.
There's a heck of a lot of things I don't like. I let other people hold
their own views and especially in the case of where I hold a minority
opinion or view, I would NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE that the rest of the USA
should stop what they're doing just for little old me.
It seems it evoked that discussion any way though... :)
Tom C.
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:55:39 -0400
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
