Oh, now you’ve gone and stirred up those horrible memories…little me struggling to make menorahs out of construction paper. Cutting the little flames out of the yellow and orange sheets was…was so…was so…—no, I can’t talk about it! And I never even thought how distressing it must have been for the little Jewish kids when they had to make those construction-paper chains to hang on Christmas trees! CHRISTMAS TREES THEY NEVER HAD!!!
Oh, the persecution… (sob, sob)
You either participated in the Christmas programs, or stay out as some sort of odd pariah. Whoa, no peer pressure there…
Your opinion. I see it as a harmless expression of national identity. Remember the end, “with liberty and justice for all” I don’t see that as bad thing to get our kids to think about.
I wouldn’t want to be compelled to take a loyalty oath under some real or implied threat. I wouldn’t want my kids to punished for not wanting to say the POA, but I see no harm in enjoying a community expression of patriotism. Regardless of your personnal opinion you don’t object to others decideing they enjoy it do you?
Puh leez. Maybe you got picked last for dodgeball too so we should abolish school sports programs.
Much of the christmas at school was about Santa and raindeer rather than Jesus. Regardless, nobody is being forced to believe that Jesus is saviour and give up their personnal convictions or beliefs, just to hear the story of Jesus and participate in some fun activities.
I can imagine reasons why someone would choose not to participate but that’s their convictions and their choice. It’s not anyone imposeing anything on you.
[side note]
I enjoy responding to cosmosdan before wading into magellan01’s multi-screen posts… it’s kind of like a light apperetif to start the digestion churning…
[/side note]
I think there definitely is some coercion to believe in God, both in the pledge and in society in general, although it varies by region of the US. We can take a poll of doper agnostics and atheists, if you don’t believe me. However, in this case, there’s really more coercion to say “under God”, even if one is lying. So the coercion is to lie, not to believe.
Well, except for the concept in which God exists, vs. the concept in which God doesn’t exist.
Huh? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, although I think it would be a bit disingenuous to claim that it’s just as easy to interpret “under God” as referring to Baal as to interpret it as referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.
Agreed. Some believe in God. Some don’t.
Waaaaaaa? That seems so hilariously wrong that I must be misunderstanding you. The pledge with “under God” specifically elevates certain of those diverse beliefs above others. The without it treats all beliefs equally. (The act of removing it could be said to be treating the beliefs unequally, but only because restoring equity involves kicking whoever was on top in the pants.)
Agreed. But the government itself shouldn’t be taking sides or favoring one group over another. If there are 80% Christians in a town, there will be more churches, more crosses, more institutions closed on Christian holidays, and (generally) more Christians. If a non-Christian started whining about all of the above, they would be way out of line. But the public institutions in this town which are paid for by the taxes of all those citizens, and the public rituals relating to those public institutions, should NOT be Christian. How you get from my statement to somehow thinking that all citizens should have it their way all the time is beyond me.
Side note;
My daughters and I did some musical shows around Christmas time about a decade ago. We did the Christmas party for the University of Maine {where the smart people hang out} two years in a row. When we got there for the second year the lady in charge asked me to leave out songs about Jesus and just sing the ones about Santa and stuff. Someone had complained about the traditional Christmas songs done the previous year.
The thought that occured to me was that if I had some religious or personnal objection to Jesus and or Christianity I might opt out of going to the Christmas party to begin with. Yeah, Going and then complaining is a much better choice. Sheeesh.
I would agree that an open concert should be allowed to express whatever the promoters choose, including Jesus or Cthulhu.
I hope that you are able to see the difference between that concert and putting an elementary school Jewish or Hindu or Jehovah’s Witness kid into a situation where they must either go along with the school program–with all the songs about Jesus (or even the songs about Santa)–or give up the holiday treats and go through the hassle of having all the other kids ask why they don’t love Jesus.
Throughout these sorts of threads, I often note that some among the majority think nothing of imposing their ways on others, yet consider it a great burden to not impose their rituals on others. I really hope I’m misunderstanding your point, here.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
No the word coersion doesn’t apply. Mild social pressure perhaps. Coersion generally implies strong pressure even an implied threat of force. Here to use the word coersion would be such a mild form as to be inaccurate, IMO.
No coersion to lie either since, if conscience dictates you are free to leave those two words out.
I agree in a largely Christian nation there is some social pressure to be a believer. So what? It’s an unavoidable side effect of being human. No greater or more significant than the pressure to wear cool clothes, have a pretigious job. As I said, I grew up in the NorthEast so perhaps it occurs more and stronger than I have been exposed to. Again, it’s all part of humanity and maturing as people and a culture. If we were a nation made up of 80% atheists and agnostics would the situation be better or just reversed?
It doesn’t even require that. If I say, under God, it only means what it means to me and nothing more. What it means to the Christian next to me has nothing to do with why I choose to say, or not to say those words. So decide that your God is science, and when you say under God that’s what it means to you and if it’s a supreme being in the sky for someone else, so what? Or if you choose to be concerned about why it was put in or what it signifies to others, then leave those two words out.
I believe I just addressed this. I understand the reasons “under God” was added and recognize what it means to most. None of that prevents the indivdual from assigning their own meaning to it. That part of the beauty of our freedom of speech and religion. It seems a little immature to me be overly concerned about what it means to others and what they might think if I say it or not. If I go to a Catholic mass or some other religions service I can observe and honor their traditions without embracing their beliefs.
It’s even more diverse than that.
Glad to be so entertaining.
I don’t agree. I understand the government should be neutral arguement and I think it has merit. I have doubts about our ability to be completely neutral. I doubt if those who want to say “under God” would agree that taking it out treats their beliefs with equity. Let’s say it is taken out and in certain areas citizens decide to continue to say “Under God”. Should there be some penalty against them? We must find some equitable balance. Since the term “Under God” does not and cannot impose any belief on anyone I don’t see it as unconstitutional or unfair.
My point is, that I think the attempt to neutralize all tax funded events and or rituals is catering to one group just as much a general and largely ceremonial phrase such as “Under God” or “In God we trust”
I’m not sure what you thought the point was, but yes I certainly see the difference. My story was just an anecdote and had nothing to do with small school children.
I’m not in favor of having Jewish, Hindu or children of any persuasion being harassed because of their religion. My point is that that type of thing, whether it deals with the POA or observing Christmas at school or the fat kid who gets made fun of or the poor kid whose hand me downs are ridiculed are all folds of the same cloth and just something we have to deal with as humans. What matters is how we choose to deal with it. Our kids will have to deal with some hassles.it’s a ritual of growing up. I don’t think we cultivate understanding, and tolerance by avoiding it. I do think that as our cultures change perhaps our rituals should evolve as well. When I was growing up we celebrated Christmas and other traditional holidays at school. It wasn’t a matter of religion to me. It was just a fun thing we did at school. When my kids were in school they sang Christmas songs but also learned about Honukka and taught me the dradel song and some others. Rather than limiting the learning and experiences and understanding of kids by deleting any sort of Christmas celebration they included another culture and expanded their knowledge and ubderstanding. That seems a better choice to me.
If my kid or even my friends kid was somehow belittled or ridiculed for their religious beliefs being out of the mainstream I would be down at the school in a heartbeat making sure the teacher and administration knew what was going on and were doing something about it.
Our unavoidable differences are an opportunity to teach our children about how wonderful that diversity is and to learn about other cultures and to respect each other. That includes religion as well as other things. I don’t think the best way to deal with them is a vain attempt to be neutral.
I think it’s a very shallow and superficial form of patriotism, but why would I care of other people enjoy it?
Great. I and other robots appreciate it. 
They can enjoy it on their own time, not on the public dime. And they can leave my children out of it.
A nice majoritarian view, of course.
I do hope you can see the difference between picking on a kid for the the kid’s weight or picking on a kid for the kid’s clothes or athletic ability or social geekiness or innumerable other things and picking on a kid for wanting or needing to opt out of a school imposed social function. Based on the long, bloody battles waged on that topic earlier in the Board’s history, if you hold a majoritarian position, I fear that you do not.
Which do you think is worse? Making fun of the kid for things he has no control over, or those things that he does not?
I must be reading this wrong, but I cannot see what you are trying to say. Can you please restate?
Just because it’s unavoidable doesn’t mean we need to make it worse on purpose. A school-sponsered ritual of harrassment/humilation does just that.
And the pledge does harass people; that’s the point.
Then please explain it to me. I didn’t participate in any previous bloody wars. Sincerely, I respect your input and am always willing to learn soething and consider another viewpoint.
At this point I don’t see a significant difference. I don’t believe anything at school should be imposed if it violates the religion or beliefs of the individual or the parents. The choice to opt out for those reasons can be tricky to deal with but doesn’t have to be an incredible ordeal if handled correctly.
Personnally I don’t care if they take “Under God” out of the pledge or “In God we trust” off the money or revamp any goverment buildings with any historic religious symbols. What I wouldn’t want to see is a general supression of someones right to practice their religion openly. Such as, if it was taken out of the pledge and certain students wanted to still say it, have at it, the same way those who object can leave it out now.
We don’t get to direct how our tax dollars are being spent except at the voting booth and that still has something to do with the majority opinion. I don’t believe there’s a solid arguement on it being unconstitutional based on my reading on the subject.
No one has advocated that students should not be able to voluntarily say “under god” if they want. This debate has nothing to do with what students can and can’t do but only what public officials can do. The meme that anyone is trying to prevent students from praying in school is a strawman. Any student can pray anytime he wants in any public school. There isn’t the slightest danger that will change and there is no political movement in that direction.
As to the tax dollar thing, check the first amendment. Congress is not allowed to appropriate any public money to establish or endorse a religious view.
First, let’s note that I have been referring to the expanded discussion to include things like Christmas parties, not the recitation of the PoA (which I still view as a teapot tempest).
Basically, the fights came down to those people who felt that it was fine for schools to run religious-themed parties or concerts, even when there were students who would need to opt out by reason of their beliefs, and those people who noted that such events placed a major burden on the kids and their families.
The majoritarian view tended to be one of “Buck up. You can deal with this.” while those who argued against the school sponsored activities noted that such activities placed a burden on parents to explain to their kids why they could not participate in fun activities and placed the kids in the position of both missing out on the fun and then being ridiculed for it. Unlike activities in private venues, the kids are compelled, by law, to be in the building while the activity occurs.
The debates generally deteriorated into one group describing actual pain (and, occasionally abuse) as the result of these situations while another group simply dismissed their concerns as “badly handled” events or as “well, change your views.”
I do not recall anyone ever being persuaded by the others’ arguments and suspect that such would take this hijack into Pit territory, so I am reluctant to pursue it.
I agree that kids should be exposed to a lot of different things. I appreciated that my kids were told about Hannakuh (and would have preferred that they had had Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur explained (although not celebrated) along with any Indian feasts that that growing immigrant population may be bringing to my area). However, when religious celebrations are conducted in schools, I think it steps over the line into an unnecessary and inappropriate imposition on minority kids.
However, the reality is that it is almost never handled correctly–pretty much the way that Separate but Equal could never be handled correctly.