Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » DAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES
  • DAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES

    Filed at 7:14 am under by dcobranchi

    [/sarcasm]

    A federal appeals court has finally thrown out Pennsylvania’s mandatory Pledge of Allegiance law (first blogged here). I hate to think how many millions of tax dollars were wasted defending an utterly indefensible law.

    Hey, PA voters. There’s an election coming up in a couple months. You know what to do.

    9 Responses to “DAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES”


    Comment by
    Eric Holcombe
    August 20th, 2004
    at 8:26 am

    I have two observations about these whiners:

    1)If you hate this country so much that you can’t say the pledge or sing the anthem, why are you still here?

    2)If your kids are in a school run by the government of the country you hate so much you can’t say the pledge or sing the anthem AND said school forces your child to do those things, why are your kids still there?

    It’s one thing to have the freedom to express yourself. It’s quite another when you desire that gov’t and the rest of the public has to see it your way.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 20th, 2004
    at 8:58 am

    Yeah- that damn First Amendment keeps getting in the way. You know, if we just had to sign loyalty cards it’d make life so much easier. We could get rid of all these liberals, agitators, and other malcontents.

    Two other points:

    1) This stupid law applied to private schools (and presumably homeschools, too).

    2) The kids do have rights, no? The SCOTUS has long held that kids could not be forced to say the Pledge. This law sought to circumvent that ruling by tattling to the parents. So, not only would a kid (forced by compulsory attendance laws to attend school) have to face whatever ostracism the school might dish out, he’d also have to deal with potentially hostile parents.

    Sorry, Eric. You’re on the wrong side this time.


    Comment by
    Darby
    August 20th, 2004
    at 10:54 am

    I’m not sure whether this would apply to the pledge, but when I was a kid growing up Quaker I was taught that I could not swear any sort of oath.
    When I ended up in court as a child, I chose to affirm that I would tell the truth, instead of swear it. I also affirmed my allegience to the Queen when I did that very un-Quakerly thing: join the military reserve.
    Which is my roundabout way of pointing out that “hate” does not necessarily have anything to do with refusing to say a pledge, or to swear allegience.
    Also, what about people who object to the inclusion of God in the pledge? Are they allowed to recite the older (god-less) version instead?

    I don’t like the idea of forcing people to say things they don’t believe.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 20th, 2004
    at 11:33 am

    It is very applicable. Compelled speech is unconstitutional.


    Comment by
    Eric Holcombe
    August 20th, 2004
    at 11:47 am

    That’s not really my point. They DO have the freedom to remove their kid from the government school if they don’t like how it’s operated. Why do they choose not to? Why give up 2nd amendment rights (among others) on gov’t school grounds without question and then think you can demand some others be protected?

    Where does the self-serving stop? Can you ‘make’ the students call the teacher “Mr. X” or “Ms. X”? Should “union lackey” be a protected alternative? If they are black, can you use the “N” word?

    How do you enforce name-calling on the playground? It is freedom of expression right?

    Can they be forced to do an oral presentation for a book report? What if the assigned book uses euphamisms or sexual situations or profanity? If this is offensive to the student, should they give the report? If you are in the audience, do you have to listen? Then what – cancel all oral presentations in case someone is offended? Determine what is offensive and to whom?

    My point is, many freedoms are limited when you agree to step on the gov’t school grounds. Only certain ones seem to bother folks and they don’t really want that freedom to apply completely – just enough to satisfy ‘them’. Problem is, they have no absolute standard. What’s offensive today may not be tomorrow. Well, if you’re truly pursuing freedom of expression without limit, there can be no such thing as offensive speech. It’s a subjective personal opinion.
    Eventually the anti-pledgers will be offended by something else and will demand it be stopped – directly opposing their argument for freedom of expression.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 20th, 2004
    at 3:29 pm

    They DO have the freedom to remove their kid from the government school if they don’t like how it’s operated. Why do they choose not to?

    Once again- this law applied to private (religious) schools as well. All schools, even those run by Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses, would have been required to start the day with the Pledge. If that isn’t a violation of the First Amendment, I don’t know what one would be.

    Kids still have rights, even in the g-schools. Yes, they are restricted (there’s little right to privacy in the schools and the 4th Amendment is bascially moot). If you want to argue where that line should be, that’ll have to be another time. You’ll never convince me, though, that compelled speech in violation of a kid’s religious beliefs is anything but evil.

    BTW, I have a little personal experinece here. I went to school in SC– one of only a handful of (nominal) Catholics among a sea of Southern Baptists. We started every school assembly with a prayer ending with “in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” (This was only 15 years or so after the SCOTUS outlawed the practice.) I was just a tad uncomfortable with this every time. Once I even had to lead the prayer. I didn’t believe at that point in my life. Talk about being a hypocrite. I was tempted to lead the prayer this way: “Ashadu an La Ilaha illa-llah, wa Ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah.” Of course, I didn’t. No guts.

    Kids shouldn’t be put in the position of having to publicly declare their faith (or lack thereof) by the government.


    Comment by
    J Aron
    August 20th, 2004
    at 6:30 pm

    Oh please – it is such a non-issue. I grew up saying the pledge it didn’t offend me, nor did it screw up any of my peers.. and today if you don’t want to say it then you don’t say it –
    no one forces anyone to say it. I had a Jehovah Witness friend in school – she didn’t say it and no one ostracized her for it.

    This is the kind of crap that makes it impossible for kids to have any kind of identity, or learn any kind of nationalism because now we are dancing around the PC stuff by calling Easter baskets (made in school) “Spring baskets” and so on.. Why is it o.k. to teach about Islam in schools but not Christianity? Why is it o.k. to celebrate and talk about Kwaanza but not Christmas or Hannukah? It all boils down to hypocritical nonsense, and catering to the ethnic group du jour.

    I found it more offensive to have a teacher telling everyone about how the Jews killed Jesus while knowing that there were Jews in her classroom (including me).. but back in the day (30 years ago) no one made a stink about it..

    I think today if the schools really want to promote diversity and multiculturalism then they need to be able to talk about and allow kids to share their cultural and religious beliefs, and that includes talk of God.

    Saying the Pledge is a choice. No one is Proselytizing in school, the Pledge is part of our history. Our founders were bible thumpers.. so do we discard them?

    How about reviewing the 45 goals of Communism? goals 28-31 fit nicley here:
    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

    restor...m.html


    Comment by
    darby
    August 20th, 2004
    at 8:26 pm

    I thought the whole point was that some legislators were trying to make it so that saying the pledge WASN’T a choice, but an obligation?
    And they didn’t succeed, so I guess the system worked for once. 🙂

    I like the way things are working in my dd’s school. They talk about Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Ramudan at the appropriate times (since these things don’t all happen at the same time). They do celebrate Easter. And Valentine’s Day, and even though kids have to have a card for every child in the class, they can still buy candy cards at lunchtime for “special” friends. Being Canadian, there’s no pledge, nothing like that. They sing, “Oh Canada” in French and English every morning.

    I’ve yet to hear of anyone objecting to “God keep our land glorious and free,” but if someone did, I’m sure no one would object if they just chose not to sing. I never known anyone to get very worked up about the anthem.

    But then, we’re just the big white socialist pinko liberal north. What would we know about this kind of thing anyway? 😉


    Comment by
    darby
    August 20th, 2004
    at 8:29 pm

    Ah… that’s big as in the size of our country and white as in the color of our snow (when it’s not brown and slushy, anyway). I just read my post over again and “big white socialist” somehow came out sounding like something I didn’t intend to say.