That is the opening and closing tagline to the Michael Medved Show. And it annoys some people. Whether true or not (and it’s true), apparently taking pride in one’s country and expressing it so blatantly and unapologetically is an offensive “no-no”. At least to some. And those “some people” I am talking about are most assuredly somewhere left of center.
While I did not find the Super Bowl Coca-Cola commercial offensive nor “un-American” like some Americans (remember the old “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” Coca-Cola commercial?), I do find this deeply un-American, idiotic, asinine, and blockheaded:
Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans.
“They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”
Um….”not offend anyone from other countries or immigrants”?! Say what?!? If I’m visiting another country, one of the things I look forward to is that country celebrating its own culture. I find beauty in a people who take pride in their customs and express love for the land they live in. I don’t go to Japan to eat KFC and be made to feel at home by my Japanese hosts by taking me out to a Japanese McDonalds. I want to be immersed in the local culture and customs of the place I am visiting. And I would be no more “offended” by Japanese taking pride in Japan than I would an American in his own backyard celebrating the beauty of the United States.
Furthermore, how can these school officials fear offending “immigrants”? If they are immigrants, wouldn’t you expect that they are immigrating to this country to become American and would have a love of American culture and celebration? Why would you immigrate to a country whose culture and customs offends you?
The student council at Fort Collins High School had proposed having a day to celebrate the United States during next week’s Winter Spirit Week. The young people pitched “’Merica Monday” – and invited their classmates to dress in patriotic colors. Their proposal was promptly shot down by administrators.
“They said they didn’t want to be exclusive to any other country,” a 17-year-old member of the student council told me.
So in America we can’t celebrate “Americanism”? What happens at this school during the 4th of July? Multi-National celebration?
In an act of appeasement:
After the administrators rejected the day to celebrate America, the teenagers offered a compromise – “My Country Monday.”
“We opened it up to everyone – no matter what country you are from,” the 17-year-old student told me. “That got declined, too.”
~~~ The irony, said the students, is that they are required to participate in Cinco de Mayo celebrations. One member of the student council pointed out the hypocrisy – and noted that students were not being forced to dress in red, white and blue for “’Merica Day.”
“We were confused why we couldn’t do one day that was for America,” the student told me.
The parents said they are “so tired” of political correctness.
The principal at Fort Collins High School did not return my phone calls and neither did the assistant principal. A spokesperson for the Poudre School District sent me a statement acknowledging that they rejected the “’Merica Day” celebration.
“Building administration met with the students to discuss the inconsistency of this day versus the other planned theme days including PJ day and Twin day,” the statement read. “The students then suggested changing the first day to My Country Monday and administration agreed. This theme day allows students to showcase their pride in America and for international students, their country of origin.”
However, parents and students said that’s not accurate. They said My Country Monday was originally rejected last week and was only reinstated midday Monday – shortly after I called the school district and began making inquiries (a coincidence, I’m sure.)
I asked the district spokesperson to clarify their statement. The spokesperson did not return my message.
“They said they didn’t feel comfortable having a day celebrated where students might feel uncomfortable with the patriotism that students are showing,” one of the students told me.
Unbelievable. This is the United States of America. We welcome the huddled masses yearning to be free with arms wide open. But if you come to our land and take offense at our values and traditions, then as we say down South, “don’t let the door hit you where good Lord split you.”
And shame on the administrators at Fort Collins High School for treating American school children like second-class citizens.
Like the “War on Christmas”, the misguided, convoluted thinking of those crammed full of political correctness would culturally impoverish the whole world for fear of being exclusive and risk offending anyone.
If Michael Medved were, say, Canadian, and regularly expressed his love of Canada with a tagline for his radio program that “Canada was the greatest nation on God’s green earth”, why should I be offended? How does that do me damage what this person thinks? When someone expresses that “My dad is the greatest” or “My mom is the best mom in the whole wide world”, what on earth is to be gained by taking offense and arguing the point? It makes my heart glad when I hear people express such love for their own father and mother. Same holds true for a patriot for his country.
With that said, quite frankly, America is indeed the greatest, most indispensible, significant nation of consequence and the last best hope of the world. Why do I say this? Because I am an unapologetic American; and because it’s true.
As I expressed in a comment section before:
it’s also the case that conservatives are misunderstood by liberals when we rail against the concept of multiculturalism and embrace the idea of American exceptionalism.
I love celebrating the diversity and beauty of other cultures; but when it comes to being an American, I value the concept of an American melting pot and not a salad bowl where all cultures are created equal (they are not, even if it sounds like an ugly, pompous, and self-centered thing to say. Think Michael Jordan. He and I were not created equal when it comes to cultural significance to the world of basketball; yet the multicultural-type of mindset will have you believe we are both equally significant and important in our contributions to the world). I don’t want separate mini-countries (other cultures) segregated within a country (the U.S.). I prefer assimilation into established American culture. Yes, add your own unique cultural flavor to the mix; but don’t replace what’s already there with your own brand.
Celebrating America as “the greatest country on God’s green earth” isn’t about being arrogant and putting down other countries as lesser than us by doing so. When those from other countries express pride and patriotism and love of country, I think it’s a beautiful thing. It’s wonderful when people are in love with where they came from- their home, their neighborhood, their city, their school, their state…their country. It’s sad when they are not. When someone says, “my dad is the best!”, why must I argue “No he’s not” then start pointing out all of the man’s faults to prove to the son what is otherwise not the case? Those who believe in American exceptionalism aren’t denying the sins of our country; but we choose not to dwell on them- something that Howard Zinn liberals and blame-America firsters hand-wring over or over-magnify them. Not without balancing it out with what’s great about our country.
What multiculturalists want to do, as I understand them, is to claim that all cultures are created equal, have equal significance to American history, and deserve equal recognition. This goes back to my Michael Jordan analogy. It may be an idea that makes some people feel good so as not to experience hurt feelings and feelings of being “left out”; but it’s misguided. It’s the same sentiment that drives liberals to want to update American history books with a more “balanced” text by including the contributions to American history by ethnic minorities, gays, and women. What’s next? Fat people? Short people? The inclusion of a person’s role to general American history should be based upon the significance and size of their actual contribution to it- not in order to magnify the role of some and minimize the role of others just so special interest groups can feel good about themselves by who they identify with. How about identifying with Americans regardless of ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation?
I’m sorry, but Islam had very little to do with founding this country. I’m sorry if that makes Muslim multiculturalists uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t. They should take pride in George Washington and identify with him and embrace him if they are Muslim-American. American textbooks don’t need to be updated by searching high and low for some obscure Muslim founding father and claim he had equal significance to the nation’s beginnings as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.
But this is what multiculturalists want. 13-15% of the population may be black; but if that is reflected in, say, Hollywood, they complain about lack of equal representation on tv and on the big screen (news to me that non-white actors aren’t starring in leading roles). Diversity happens naturally. It should not be forced, however. Whites, blacks, yellows, reds, Thais, Irish, Samoans, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc. did not all contribute equally to the formation of our country. The lament that most of America’s presidents have been a whites-only club is a ridiculous argument. I’ve heard some use the point as proof-positive of America’s racist attitudes! Good grief!
– Jean-Francois Revel
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Wordsmith
you said all many of us want to say, want to hear, want to spit at them,,
want to stick in their mouth,
THEY ATTACK THE LONG TIME TRADITION AND OBAMA IS MUTE, HE ALOWED THE CHRISTIANS
TO BE AGGRESS AND BE ROB OF THEIR FOUNDAMENTAL RIGHT,
AND THAT SENTENCE : SO TO NOT OFFEND IS A FALSE ROTTEN STUPID EXCUSE, ONLY FOR THE MENTALY DEPRAVE HUMAN,TO FEEL FREE OF NOT BE AROUND CHRISTIANITY, WHICH IS NOT HAPPENING,
AS MUCH AS THEY TRY TO MAKE IT GO,AND BECAUSE THEY TRY TO TAKE IT OUT IT MAKE CHRISTIANS WANT TO SHOUT IT OUT LOUD, NO ONE WANT TO HEAR THE ATHEISTS TALK OF
WHAT NOTHING INTERESTING EMPTYNESS OF THE SOUL WHO LOST THE LIGHT,
AT THE LEAST CHRISTIANITY IS WARM FEELING OF HOPE AND GOOD AIM, KINDNESS FOR OTHER,
GENEROSITY AND COMPASSION, FOR A LIFE TIME OF WORKING HARD TO MAKE IT SOMEDAY,
THANK YOU, YOU SAID IT SO WELL,
THE MORE THEY TRY TO TAKE IT OUT, THE MORE THE CHRISTIANS
WILL BRING IT OUT,TO THEIR FACE, A WAY OF FIGHTING ANY SUPRESSION, OBAMA WANT TO INSTALL,
HE ALSO TRY TO SUPRESS THE FLAG IN SCHOOL AND THE THOUGHT THAT AMERICA IS EXCEPTIONAL IN THE WORLD,
TO TAKE AWAY THE PATRIOTISM OF THE YOUTH IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE, THAT PRIDE OF BEING AMERICAN MUST BE IN FRONT OF ALL WHO COME HERE, NOT SUPRESS,
IT COST SO MUCH LIVES AND LIMBS TO THE BRAVEST OF THE WORLD,
I’ll never miss a chance to have it reminded to all the citizens,
@Wordsmith:
How is stating that I don’t support publicly funded indoctrination of Conservative Christian values being “hostile” to religion? It seems to me that raising one religion over all others as the accepted religion of our heritage is the hostile act. I am perfectly fine with any religious expression that’s Constitutional. I – and most liberals – really don’t care about nativity displays. We care about the teaching of one particular brand of religion in our public schools. When you raise one religion above all others, what are you saying to those who don’t partake of that religion, but whose tax dollars are funding this expression?
I never said religion should be “in the closet”, so I don’t know where you got that quote from. I said it shouldn’t be in the classroom. By “private” I mean not public as in not State-funded or promoted. That’s a pretty simple point supported by the First Amendment and the US Supreme Court. That’s not a very difficult line to distinguish, except apparently on the Right. Pointing out the ridiculousness and the perniciousness of the hyperventilation about a supposed “War on Christmas” has nothing to do with my personal views on religion. This right wing meme serves the same function as cries of “reverse racism”. It’s the way the Right fans up resentment against a supposed liberal boogeyman, which is good for business. It’s the way the Right preemptively hamstrings the expressions of legitimate concerns with one-size-fits-all talking points. You don’t like prayer in school? You must hate Christmas too. You don’t agree with the recent ruling on the VRA? You must be a reverse racist.
You invoke “The Founders” and “heritage”; I counter that we live in the America of the 21st century, not the 18th. I believe our chief concern should be how we treat the living, our neighbors, not how some of us believe we’re honoring the dead when we’re actually acting in our own interests. If the Founders truly intended to freeze American religious culture in amber, I assume they would have explicitly done so. They did the opposite. You vaguely invoke a “Judeo-Christian culture and heritage” but how does that connect specifically to the religious culture of the Founders? There have been waves of immigration since the 18th century, new religious and cultural influence pumped into American culture. Not just gangsta rap, but pizza weren’t around in 1780. Who gets to decide what deserves canonization into the real American “cultural and heritage”? The Founders were overwhelmingly male, white, Western European Presbyterians and Episcopalians. The first generation of Americans eligible to vote were as well. So is that our cultural heritage? It seems like you’ve extended the definition to include Jews however, and all Christians. And women and blacks, I assume. Why is that? What is the basis of your line, which clearly has drifted since the 18th century? How do you explain to a Hindu why Catholics are in the club, but not not Hindus and Muslims (not to mention agnostics and atheists)? I think I’m being a better neighbor agreeing that it’s unfair to subject my neighbor’s Buddhist child to Christian religious indoctrination (and bad science) than to fight for it based on outdated attitudes about who qualifies as the real Americans, those deserving of special recognition and deference.
I always enjoy it when two intelligent, articulate,respectful adversaries have a meaningful debate.
IMO Tom and Word are the very best F.A. has to offer.
A heads up— Rand Paul is taking his Libertarian views straight into the den of the evangelicals. If he can wrestle the nom. from Perry et al. I believe he’ll have a fighting chance against HRC. 43 yr old Marco Rubio as Veep.
@Richard Wheeler:
2 problems with him, he’s not eligible, not NBC and he has (old Navy saying) crapped in his flat hat, being for Amnesty is a non-starter for conservatives..
Tom? LOL….
@Redteam: Like I’ve said you are to the right of Attila The Hun–not surprisingly you see that as a complement. Rubio is for “path to citizenship” not amnesty. This view is supported by over 65% of electorate. He is most definitely eligible until SCOTUS rules otherwise.
You are a dinosaur RT. LOL
You did pick Obama to win twice. You got a prediction for Repub. ticket in 2016?
@Tom:
Let me see if I understand you. If a student in a 5th grade class stands up and says, ” I want to thank God and Jesus Christ for giving me this wonderful life, and school and class and all the wonderful people in this class. ” Is that ok or not? the student is not being paid by the public. Suppose the teacher of that class does not ‘endorse’ what the student said, but says ” If anyone in the class wants to say a prayer publicly, that’s okay, we have 5 minutes of free time.” Is that ok?
If I understand your statement, you are saying, hypothetically: You live in a neighborhood that includes a Christian church and everyone in your neighborhood is a Christian, so talking about or subjecting your other neighbors (all Christians) to Christianity is ok. Right? But then a Buddhist moves into that neighborhood and now it’s no longer proper to talk about or subject your neighbors to Christianity because that Buddhist might be offended. Right? If that is the case, how would you know he was a Buddhist? Wouldn’t he have had to subject the Christians to his Buddhism for them to know he was a Buddhist? is that Ok? In my opinion, the Christians are free to say what they want to about religion and the Buddhist is also free to say what he wants to about religion. This whole thing is a very very silly argument. The freedom of speech is not only about religion. What if we applied the same standards to politics. Do this exercise. In the previous paragraph, substitute the word Conservative everywhere I said Christian and substitute Liberal everywhere I said Buddhist.
I would contend that no liberal would object to teachers espousing their liberal views in a classroom, but would have a huge problem with a conservative doing the same.
How about we stick with the Constitution and allow everyone the free exercise of speech, politics, and religion?
@Richard Wheeler:
Amnesty is the correct word for conservatives, path to citizenship is for liberals. In either case it means illegal aliens get to stay here and be supported by working Americans.
there is no definition of NBC that includes a child born of two foreign citizens. As a minimum he was born with dual citizenship, Cuban and American and is only given US citizenship by law, which means, not natural.
If Attila was a far leftie then, yes I’m to the right of her. But if she’s a far rightie, then I’m likely to the left of Her. Where can I find out about her politics?
@Richard Wheeler:
RW, I read what I could find about her and seems she is to the left of Zippy, so yes, I would be to the right of her, as you would be also. Doesn’t that make you feel good?
@Redteam: You looked up Attila before–remember? Read more closely as to gender.Don’t think anyone but you would suggest he’s left of Obama or myself.
@Richard Wheeler:
I might have looked her up before, but I still can’t find out anything about her politics. Maybe you could provide a link that says something political about her. What difference does it make if she is a he or vice versa? Aren’t everyone equal?
@Richard Wheeler:
Note:
It clearly does not define Attila as male, the only clue is ‘thin beard’ which could describe some women.
So, tell me, how do you know the sex of Attila? There is very little actual history about him, almost all passed down by word of mouth.
I can not find even one word about the politics of Attila, so tell me again, how do you know he/she was not a Dimocrat. I will concede it would be hard for her to be left of Zippy tho.
RW, this is typical of what is known about Attila:
read that and tell me what is wrong with what is said. here’s a link if you want to check context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
@Redteam: “Thin beard”-what kind of women you been hanging with RT?
ROAH It’s a descriptive expression designating one on the far right of the political spectrum.—kinda like ” left of code pink.” puts one out in lefty la la land.
@Richard Wheeler: Retreating RW?
you ever been to a fair or side shows where they have bearded ladies. Having a beard is normally considered a male trait, but lacking other evidence, can not be considered conclusive. Want to see lots of them? https://www.google.com/search?q=bearded+women&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox
Retreating there also? You are admitting that you’ve only been using leftie comments to justify your invalid conclusions? I can’t find anything, at all, about Attila’s politics, so if you can or have, please link me.
I can agree with that because I have first hand knowledge of code pink politics, but not equating with ROAH because NO ONE has knowledge of his/her politics.
@Redteam: Sending me pictures of bearded ladies—pls stop– or at least offset with some S.I. swimsuit models.Thanks
@Redteam:
Of course it is. The First Amendment protects that right.
.
Not according to the Supreme Court. It was ruled unconstitutional in Wallace v. Jaffree for teachers to set aside one minute a day for silent prayer. Your scenario goes well beyond that.
Your lame attempts at arriving at gotcha moments are always seriously deficient. I don’t even know what “talking about or subjecting” even means. My First Amendment right allows me to talk about religion with my neighbor all I like. However I can’t “subject” my neighbor to religion via kidnapping and waterboarding. Whether you mean that or not is unclear, so I’ll go with that interpretation. If you’re trying to arrive at a point, if you have one, please express yourself with precision in the future to avoid misunderstandings.
Your problem is you don’t understand the argument. You’re not even within a country mile. You are the person I spoke of above who internalizes the simplistic memes and can’t think beyond them.
@Richard Wheeler: You seem to have lived a sheltered life, not knowing there was such a thing as bearded women, just thought you might want to see evidence. So now you admit Attila might have been a woman?
@Redteam: Oh I know about bearded women. Like the purple cow” I’d rather see than be one.”
Now how bout those swimsuit models.
Attila might have been a woman? With that beard might have been a transvestite.
@Tom:
I didn’t mention ‘silent prayer’.
you said:
from your 52 above
As shown you brought the subject up. The context as you stated is the context I stated.
If you are walking down the street in OUR neighborhood and you see a Nativity scene in my yard, you are being ‘subjected’ to Christianity. If you see a sign on my car that says ‘Jesus is good’ , you are being subjected to Christianity. As you said above ” I think I’m being a better neighbor agreeing that it’s unfair to subject my neighbor’s Buddhist child to Christian religious indoctrination”, so if you think I’m using ‘subjected’ in the wrong context, perhaps you could break down your sentence that I quoted and tell me what it ‘really’ means.
The real problem is: you made a statement about subjecting someone to your religion and when I asked you about it, you said you didn’t know what is meant by ‘subjecting’ someone. And I have a problem?
@Richard Wheeler:
Are you agreeing Attila might have been a woman? I’ve seen no evidence one way or the other. Are you saying persons with a beard are likely transvestites? How about answering my question from 62. It’s a test.
@Redteam:
No, you said praying “publicly”, which goes far beyond silent prayer. Guess what, that’s unconstitutional. Don’t blame me. Blame the Constitution and the Supreme Court. It’s becoming quite clear that you have no respect for the Constitution or its authors.
No it’s not. Not even close. I was speaking about religion being taught in public schools, which is unconstitutional. You are talking about two neighbors shooting the breeze, which obviously is not. Like I said, you have no clue what this debate is even about. But being a time-waster doesn’t seem to bother you, so forge forth, my clueless friend.
@Redteam: Talk about “sheltered life” Surprises me you’ve never heard someone say he/she is “right of Atilla The Hun.” Commonly used by those from right, left and center.
Re your debate with Tom. It does seem you have some trouble following the thread. Are you a “cafeteria Constitutionalist?”
@Tom:
LOL. I’m the one that thinks Congress shall make no law and here you are defending the Supreme Court allowing that law to be made. Wow. You said:
How could you keep it out of the classroom? Perhaps by ‘making a law’ prohibiting it? Wouldn’t that law be unconstitutional?
You said:
How could that be ‘prohibited’, perhaps by ‘making a law’ as in, ” Congress shall make no law”? you said:
So the First Amendment says it IS ok for someone to ‘make a law prohibiting’? I think not, it actually says precisely: ” prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ” That very clearly says that no law can be made impeding the free exercise of religion, I think if someone made a law that did so, as in, you can’t pray in school, that would be an illegal law because it is explicitly prohibited. The Supreme Court ruling that you can’t say a prayer in school is not a law and they don’t make laws. Incorrect interpretations of the constitution do not support the constitution or make the constitution wrong, it only makes the Court wrong.
Actually neither is unconstitutional, Congress can’t make a law restricting religion ‘anywhere’ and two neighbors talking about religion IS subjecting them to the religion, which is also not unconstitutional.
Maybe so, but the authors said a law couldn’t be made restricting religion, you obviously think it can be. So who is ignoring the authors wishes?
@Richard Wheeler:
Suggest you go back and re-read what Tom and I have said. You’ve missed a lot. I know that it is illegal for anyone in the United States to make a law restricting the free exercise of religion according to the 1st amendment.. Tom thinks it’s ok. Which one is in the cafeteria?
Not so sheltered. I’ve heard the expression and my point was that Attila was left of Zippy so of course I’m to the Right of Attila. I just wanted to know how you know what her politics were, I can’t find even one word about her politics, and apparently you can’t either because I’ve asked you for a link and haven’t seen one from you.
A strict interpretation of the statement by me would seem to indicate that Attila is an extreme lefty and everyone in the world is to the ROAH. Do you interpret it differently and why? What traits of hers do you think implies she is conservative, her beard?
and the answer to 62 is?
@Redteam:
I never said anything about “making a law” prohibiting it. That’s you putting words in my mouth. I said teaching religion or prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, as ruled by the US Supreme Court. Your interpretation of the Constitution, besides being nonsensical, is completely irreverent. Unfortunately for you, your opinion has no legal standing in this matter. Still confused?
@Redteam: Agreed that Attila was a Supreme Leader with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In a traditional sense conservatives oppose most change i.e. support traditional values. This is evidenced in your discussion with Tom.
Right or wrong the expression ROAH derives from this perception.
@Tom:
Ok, so if they can not make a law prohibiting it, how do they prohibit it? I quoted the 1st amendment, and here it is again: ” prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ” that is a precise quote. So how can anyone ‘impede the free exercise of religion’ if they don’t make a law against it? I said: Just because the Court makes an interpretation that is illegal does not make the constitution wrong, just the Court.
and neither does yours.
why not, instead of just making a claim, tell me exactly what is nonsensical?
” prohibits the making of any law” What does that mean?
” respecting an establishment of religion,” what does that mean?
” impeding the free exercise of religion, ” What does that mean?
” abridging the freedom of speech,” What does that mean?
I don’t believe it’s possible for you to write any interpretation that means it is OK to make a law………
@Redteam:
Of course you quote the precise clauses of the Constitution that form the basis of separation of Church and State, the basis of the SCOTUS decisions discussed above; in terms you will understand: why public school administrators and teachers cannot lead students in prayer or otherwise promote religion in general.
Thomas Jefferson:
@Redteam:
Well, mine is less an opinion than the settled interpretation of the Constitution, shared by Jefferson and multiple Supreme Courts. What does yours have going for it?
@Redteam:
You don’t need a law prohibiting something that’s unconstitutional. It’s a given.
@Richard Wheeler:
Amusing, considering that he apparently was at war about 100% of the time trying to change things. The only status quo she seemed to be interested in was maintaining a state of war.
I will agree that I’m conservative.
@Tom:
So you can say that at the same time you’re saying they can’t make a law prohibiting anyone from the free exercise of religion?
Do you find it surprising for someone to quote a precise clause of the constitution that says that no one can make a law at the same time that you are insisting that they can make a law? Strange. I see nothing strange in quoting something that supports the point I’m making and no less than the US Constitution. while all you can say is that they can’t talk about religion in a school room but they can talk about politics. Very strange. The very same amendment covers both, and neither can be prohibited. You can not prohibit someone from doing something that you can not make a law that prohibits. You can only say that the Supreme Court finds it legal for them to do something that the constitution prohibits them from doing. The Supreme Court is not always right, remember slavery?
Tom, in 52, you said:
Can I assume you are talking about Christianity? So, does that mean you wouldn’t object to the teaching of Islam or Buddhism in the public schools? Just that ‘one particular brand of religion’?
@Tom:
I missed that part that was unconstitutional. But let get the definition correct before discussing the subject. Unconstitutional means that it is something that the constitution says is not permitted
So, if the constitution says that you can not make a law that impedes the free exercise of religion. I would contend that if you do make a law that impedes the free exercise of religion, that would be unconstitutional.
Your contention seems to be that if you do permit the free exercise of religion, that is unconstitutional. Where is the free exercise of religion prohibited in the constitution thereby making it unconstitutional?
@Redteam:
Is that a guess? Sorry, wrong again. Do everyone a favor and educate yourself on a subject before diving in and clogging up the comments thread with ignorance. I barely have time for an intelligent debate, never mind whatever this is. Here is a head start:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wallace-jaffree.html
Come back with an intelligent viewpoint or critique of anything I’ve written and it will be my pleasure to reply. Otherwise, farewell.
@Tom: That is typical comments from someone when they have totally given up on trying to make an intelligent argument.
That’s one of the reasons that this comment by RW in 53 is so comical:
Tom makes a dumbass statement that he can’t back up when challenged on it by Word, then he comes back with his typical Liberal ‘no answer’ which dazzles RW with the liberal brilliance. Then Word doesn’t bother responding because he knows he’s dealing with an illiterate.
This recent thread is very comical. Tom says exercising religion is unconstitutional. I point out where the constitution specifically says that no one can keep anyone from exercising freedom of religion and he thinks that pointing to a Liberal court decision which is wrong proves some point.
When he can not defend his position, it’s because I don’t understand the issue, he says:
clearly because he has no defense, he’s lost and struggling.
The constitution clearly says no one can make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and he still argues that they have, indeed, made such a law.
In other words, all he can say is “me too”
So RW, see why the average conservative can’t discuss anything intelligently with liberals? There are no liberals intelligent enough to do so. (However, I do rate you as above the average liberal)
@Tom: By the way Tom, that first link is to a link by Cornell. I have heard somewhere that they give out diplomas in Cracker Jacks boxes? anyhow, here is the opinion at that link: ” state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day — even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited.” You will note that this applies to ‘establishment of religion’ and not ‘free exercise’ of religion. and it clearly says: ” state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day” but it does not say that they can’t allow anyone to compose their own prayer and recite it in the public schools at any time during the day. This is clearly what the constitution meant by state not establishing. But an individual can not be prohibited from saying his own prayer in school.
So, you’re wrong again. As always.
Very interesting what you can see if you keep reading, further on down in that opinion mentioned above, you find this:
This seems to me to say that a school can not adopt a rule or law that says what a student can or can not wear. I find this interesting because so many school systems require uniforms now. And it also says that
which means that all these children that are being expelled for pointing their finger at someone may be illegal.
But it clearly does allow that if a child wants to wear a shirt that says God is Good that it can not be prohibited.
Okay, so I went on and read at the other link. I find it rather humorous that neither of the two links Tom supplied to defend his case does that. Both of those are completely counter to his argument. That second link is a simple one and it simply confirms that a moment of silence can’t be required for the purpose of requiring prayer or even suggesting a prayer be said. But it does not say that a person can not, own his own, observe a moment of prayer or even say an audible prayer. Just that the school can not ‘require’ it. It is simply a confirmation of the first amendment statement that the state can not support any establishment of a religion, but at the same time can not interfere with any individuals freedom of the exercise of religion.
So my thanks Tom for the links to two pieces that totally destroyed your contention and supported mine 100%.
@Redteam:
I am impressed you read the links. You may not have an open mind, but you possibly possess a nascent willingness to learn. You may have won this round, Redteam, but you haven’t won the war on the war on The War on Christmas.
Tom
IT’S so obvious that you are influence by foreign belief and other religion”s beliefs
gaining ground in the USA, alike this administration, who use their power to influence the teachers, NOT ONLY INFLUENCE BUT COMPELL THEM TO THEIR UN AMERICAN MINDSET,
AND YOU”RE THE BLATANT PROOF OF IT, COMMING HERE AND TRYING TO TAKE THEIRE SIDE,
THIS WAR ON CHRISTIAN IS TRUE’, THEY GET ATTACK FROM MANY SIDES, REMEMBER IF THEY BRING A KNIFE BRING A GUN,
WHO SAID THAT,
WHY WOULD CHRISTIANITY BOTHER YOU NOW, IT ‘S HERE SINCE THE FOUNDING LAWS OF THE LAND, NO ONE IS THREATENING YOU TO FOLLOW IT OR TO LISTEN TO A PRAYER,
OR TO THE WORDS OF WISDOM FROM A PRIEST, BUT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL OTHER INFLUENCES WITH IT, ON THE SAME LEVEL , WHICH IS NOT,
you fell like a weak mind to those other influences you are questionning,
but do not superpose all the influences trying to make their way by sneaking in the school,
the AMERICAN way include the protection of other religions and beliefs but you benting on thoses to become top one it is UN-AMERICAN , NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN PREVIOUS PRESIDENCY,
THE PROOF AGAIN THAT CHRISTIANITY WHICH HAS NEVER DONE WRONG TO THE YOUTH LEARNING IN SCHOOL OR THE FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO MEET ENDS EVERY MONTHLY BUDGET, AND TAKING THEIR STRENGTH IN PRAYER AND THEIR BELIEFS IN GOD
AS OPPOSE TO OTHER INFLUENCES COMING FROM COUNTRIES WHO SLITH THE HEADS OF THEIR MINORITY CHRISTIANS, WHICH HERE IS
A MAJORITY CHRISTIAN , AND GOD HELP US TO REMAIN LIKE IT, FOR EVER IN AMERICA,
YOU CAN BITCH ABOUT IT BUT TO SUPRESS PUBLICLY IT IS WRONG, AND YOU ARE NOT AMERICAN, 100 PER CENT
TRULY IF YOU LET PUBLIC TRADITIONS BE SUPPRESS,
THIS AMERICA IS BEING ATTACK YES AND YOU ARE AMERICAN TOTALY OR YOU JUST LIVE IN AMERICA TO TAKE AND TRY TO IMPOSE ON THE GOOD AMERICAN, AND CALL YOURSELF AMERICAN, BUT LOW PERCENT
IT’S HIGH TIME THAT YOU CHECK
YOUR ALLEGIANCE TO THIS COUNTRY,
IT MUST BE 100 PER CENT, OR YOU ARE JUST A FOREIGNER, IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY, TRYING TO KILL CHRISTIANITY, BECAUSE IT’S NOW IN YOUR WAY OF ACHIEVING THE INDOCTRINATION TOWARD A TOTALITARIAN COUNTRY BLEND INTO THE WORLD’S COUNTRIES,
NOT IN AMERICA IT WON’T SUCCEED BECAUSE SHE IS UNIQUE AND UNMATCH IN THE WORLD,
AND WILL STAY THAT WAY,AS THE EXCEPTIONALIST AMERICA,OVER THE WORLD’S INFLUENCE,
DON’T EVEN TRY, BECAUSE YOU WILL JOIN THE OTHER BITING THEIR FINGER NAILS OUT OF ENVY AND GREED,,
THEY EVEN DEMOLISH THOSE STONES WITH THE 10 COMMANDS SO PRECIOUS TO BE IN EVERY ONE’S LIVES,
HERE ANOTHER PROOF THEY ARE WRONG TO FIGHT CHRISTIANITY,
@Tom:
there is so many ‘wars’ in there, I’m not sure which of the three I’m for. In any case, as long as the people are free to celebrate which holidays they want to celebrate, then I’m fine with that war.
What a great story, A high school asked the Black Student union what to serve at a special lunch, they made a recommendation that was accepted, when it got announced a bunch of Black people got all pissed off because they said the food items had nothing to do with Black History. So funny. What would you recommend as menu items for a lunch for black history month that had to do with black history?
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/07/calif-high-school-apologizes-for-offensive-lunch-menu/20825396/?ncid=webmail7
@Tom:
Prior to modern day liberal atheists getting all uppity 😉
So then I can count on most liberals protesting nonsense like this? Why did it take 60 years to raise a stink if it were so “unConstitutional”? What do you make of religious expression mixed with government during the early years of our nation’s founding?
Do these people honestly want to celebrate the flying spaghetti monster, or are they doing this just to mock religion and denigrate?
I don’t see it that way. I see it more from a cultural tradition than religious indoctrination.
How does public religious expression affect you- Tom- personally? If you were to walk by a government building that had the Ten Commandments writ on it, how does it cause you harm? Imo, it’s just so much feigned, fabricated outrage because we are told to be outraged.
Yes you do. It’s clarified in your next statement:
Does the Establishment Clause apply to individual states from establishing a state religion?
The boogeyman’s real. Please note the actions of the ACLU for the last 70 years of hostility toward religious freedom.
Is everything that evolves and changes for the betterment of society? Why not abandon all tradition and attachment to history and culture, then?
Cultural evolution is one thing when it’s natural and organic. But what your side has been doing has been forcing change through dishonest interpretation (re: ACLU agenda, Justice Hugo Black and “wall of separation”…) and a hostility toward religious expression of any kind out in public- it cloaks itself in the guise of Establishment Claus distortion and ignores the mixing of government and religion that has been around since Day One.
Yes, and so how does “In God We Trust”, Ten Commandments on a building, support of faith-based initiatives that help “how we treat the living, our neighbors” and do great charity work- how does all of that cause you harm? How are you being indoctrinated? Am I indoctrinated? Is that why I take the position I do (while remaining non-religious)?
What the Founders did was insure that no single National Church be established (like the Church of England). Not that there’d be less public religious expression; nor that there was some sort of ban on religious expression mixing with government.
Of course. Please read the OP and my link to an earlier comment of mind regarding the concept of multiculturalism.
Absorb what is useful. Discard what isn’t. Add what is specifically your own.
Not the ACLU.
It should happen naturally and gradually. When certain things gain in popularity, it gets absorbed into the culture and becomes part of the tradition.
Because it was Judeo-Christian “values” and thinking of our early forefathers to this country that has made such acceptance possible. It’s “core” cultural heritage. That is what I see as being eroded, erased, and eradicated from our national character. We risk becoming a nation of many mini-nations rather than one people with diversity, yet also with core, shared values and history.
Again, please read the OP more carefully.
Wordsmith
WOW, again,THIS IS COMPLETE AND SHOULD WALK INTO EVERY SCHOOL TODAY, AND TAUGHT BY EVERY TEACHER,
THANK YOU
While we are talking about religion and impacts on young people in schools, etc. It would be a good time to remind everyone of what the liberals really want young people to know about their standards. Time magazine has always been known as a liberal publication, but no one seems to be concerned, at times, about the message they give when they Honor some persons with a Cover story on them as the Man of the Year. Well some of the persons so honored by Time magazine are controversial figures such as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957) and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979). Aren’t these some especially deserving persons to be so honored? Tells a lot about the standard of liberals.
Redteam
absolutely tell of their corrupt mind, for the sake of selling their trash, WHICH SHOULD GO WHERE ALL OTHER TRASH END UP,
@Redteam: Times Man Of The Year has never been” good guy of the year”–it’s the person who has made the greatest impact. Often a person who is controversial.
As far as whether someone is left or right? Seems to depend on where the observer sits on the spectrum
What’s most troubling are those Americans who root for failure whether Obamas or Bushs.
These people are not Patriots.
.
@Richard Wheeler: Interesting RW, certainly Time’s man of the year is someone they admire, impact or not.
Unfortunately for the US, even with no one rooting for Obama’s failure, he is still likely to be very good at failure. It was certainly foredoomed that to put a person who’s only experience at anything was failing at community organizer was not a good formula for success.
@Redteam : Times POY “Person who for better or worse has influenced events the most over the past year.” Admiration plays no part,-Admiration fo Hitler? C’mon
Many are rooting against Obama as many rooted against Bush.
A Pox on all their houses.