Miska,
afaik, the pledge is being recited not by grown up adults, but kids,
who are usually very easily pressured into conformity with "majority".
i seriously doubt that a 8 years old can possibly meaningfully excercise
his "right to not participate it" when everybody else in his class does.
Well maybe the kids are whimps where you live then, or maybe there was never
an instance in YOUR childhood where you felt compelled for rseasons of
conscience to stand out and not participate, but children much younger than
the age of 8 can definitely exercise their rights based on parental
training.
saying "no one is forcing them" it is hypocrisy. kinda like nobody was
forcing
kids in ussr to join pioneer and komsomol organizations. whoever is
claiming that
is full of shit.
I don't know anything about that, but the way I see it, you stand up for
your principles, and the consequences whatever they are follow, or you take
the course of least resistance and whimp out.
There's plenty of examples of the former and latter.
Tom C.
On 10/18/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
>
>
