Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sunny who wrote (13674)	10/24/2003 3:13:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793800

It is not required that anyone make an issue out of something they disagree with. No, it's not required, but people generally get exercised when their freedom of religion is compromised, whatever their religion might be. If only Christians were allowed to be upset by that, why, that would be unconstitutional, wouldn't it? Actually, one could make an argument that we do have an civic obligation to make an issue when the Bill of Rights is being compromised and not just stand silent. While there may not be a requirement to make an issue, there certainly is no requirement that anyone just stand silent in that case as you suggest. In the context of the BoR there is no middle ground. We have the right of Free Expression and the Government may make no law that restricts freedom of religion. Exactly, which is why you can't make little kids make an oath to a deity that is not theirs. The middle ground I mention is not to compromise on respecting the Bill of Rights. I heartily endorse respect for the Bill of Rights. The middle ground is showing courtesy and restraint so as not to compromise the freedom of religion of others while we pursue our own. Doing less is, at best, rude and at worst, unconstitutional. There is no reason why kids need to make a daily oath to the flag. It might be nice, or not, but it is not in any way essential. And there is no reason why that oath of allegiance to the flag need specify any relationship between the flag and any deity. That, too, might be nice, but is hardly necessary. One might say it's even superfluous. We managed nicely before the "under God" was added to the Pledge. Seems to me we won WWII before it was added. While many people may find value in the daily oath and also in the religious reference, the world won't fall apart if it's not recited. OTOH, if it is recited, it undermines the Bill of Rights of which we are both so fond. To me, that's a no brainer. Sure the country was formed under Christian principles. That doesn't change just because we don't have our kids attest to it every day by asserting that God is watching over us. By middle ground, I'm not remotely suggesting abandoning the Bill of Rights, but rather suggesting that there can be constructive dialog and discretion from both sides regarding how freedom of religion be implemented in the real world. Perhaps we could change "under God" to your "formed under Christian principles." That way the kids don't have to assert a deity they don't believe in but the role of Christianity is recognized. That's just off the top of my head. There are likely many ideas. The extremists on both sides keep us from that kind of dialog. Why should the discomfort of a small minority of the population be given more weight than the will of the majority? You may have missed the day in civics class when they discussed the role of the Constitution in protecting us from the "tyranny of the majority." Each individual is guaranteed freedom of religion, not just Christians. You know, one day Christians may no longer be the majority. <<First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -Niemoller>>

To: Sunny who wrote (13674)	10/24/2003 8:26:12 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Why should the discomfort of a small minority of the population be given more weight than the will of the majority? You want the kid to remain seated and silent during the Pledge? Can you imagine how he will be treated the others? The whole concept is wrong, IMO. It's a "Test oath" which one of the main reasons Protestants moved here from England in the first place. They didn't want to be forced to affirm something they didn't believe in. The Flag is being used during the oath as a "Graven Image." The "under God" is an "in your face" by the Christian community to everyone else. Not a very Christian thing to do.