SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (53058)7/16/2002 9:46:39 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
or why the secularists haven't raised hell about it.

I think that's because it's an irritant, but de minimus. The issue about the Pledge is the coercive or alienating influence on innocent children. If it weren't being said in schools, it wouldn't be an issue either.



To: Bill who wrote (53058)7/16/2002 9:46:57 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
I don't like it. But most people don't read their money. No one forces you to look at it. I think the pledge is very different. The recitation of words, the same words, over and over again is a type of brain washing. Let's face it, we do that to ingrain deep deep lessons. Most of those lessons are positive. The ABC song for example. I think almost everyone except champions of illiteracy (are there any?) would be for that. I support the 9th circuit because I have been uncomfortable saying the pledge myself, as a child and as an adult. I am uncomfortable leading the pledge in the religiously diverse classroom and I have had children who needed to step outside while the pledge was being said, because of their religious beliefs.

I wouldn't have brought the suit about the pledge but I would be happy if the decision kept the words out forever. I would be happy if the money changed, but for the reasons stated above, I do not find it as big an issue. Most secularists clearly perceive they have better things to occupy there time. I know I do.