We read:
"Atheists and radical church-state separatists have taken particular offense to the continued uttering of the Pledge of Allegiance. To these individuals, the words “under God” have no place in the public square, even when utterances are voluntary in nature.
Now, there’s a new epicenter in the debate over the Pledge. Following the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the University of Connecticut’s interim athletic director, Paul Pendergast, decided to add the recitation as a viable way for individuals to remember both the nation and U.S. troops.
Following his decision, the Pledge was first uttered after a home football game on September 16 and the response was so positive that it was extended to all football and basketball games.
Geno Auriemma, UConn‘s women’s basketball coach, agrees with the decision to include it and has been open about his support for saying the Pledge. ”It’s like anything else, you’re gonna have people that complain about it and people that love it,” he said at a press conference last week. “And then you have the wackos that say ‘well we shouldn’t bring God into this,‘ because you have to say ’one nation under God’ right?”
The decision, which has now led to the Pledge being uttered before most athletic games, is angering fans who believe the action violates the nation’s separation of church and state sentiment. Others claim that it puts non-American athletes in an unfair position — even though these individuals are obviously studying on U.S. soil and can opt out of pledging any allegiance to the country.
Some legal experts, though they may personally disagree, claim that the university is within legal bounds — so long as the pledge remains optional.
Source
Hearing someone else say something patriotic is going to do some terrible damage to you? What rubbish! This is just the "hate America" brigade at work.
13 comments:
For some libby comic relief at Google. As you all probably know, Yesterday was Pearl Harbor day, the 70th anniversary. Google didn't honor it with a doodle for the US page. Today, on the US page they are honoring the 125th birthday of a Mexican Communist, Diego Rivera.
http://www.seroundtable.com/google-diego-rivera-logo-14426.html
It is inappropriate? It is only inappropriate if the party involved says so!!
So patriotism is once again linked to theism (god-worship).
How many bloody wars (on both sides) have been fought for their own "God and Country"?!
I guess we still live in the Dark Ages and nobody learns from history!
So, the arguments are the mythical "separation of church and state" (someone please show me that clause in the constitution) and that foreign athletes might be uncomfortable or that it might not be fair. Nevermind that said athletes are likely on scholarship and enjoying the bountiful fruits of the American way of life. Why should such athletes be thankful for that piddling bit of opportunity?
Welcome to the ongoing tyranny of the minority. Thou shalt not mention God because one person in a jillion might be "uncomfortable."
Screw 'em. The exit is as close as the nearest international airport. Bon voyage and get the hell out. Go try that mess in the middle east and let us know how it works out for you.
Big question here ... Are these games even remotely receiving funding from the Federal Gov.? If so , refund that portion . Thus rendering the event a non-fed. issue . Next question ... Does Conn. have a similar church-state prohibition ?
You can see where this is going . If you don't want the government rules , don't accept the government money .
Government funded entertainment contributed to the fall of Rome .
rick the fed
I attended a couple sporting events while in the US.
As an Australian was I the least bit offended at hearing the national anthem? Not at all.
For those who wish to join in with the pledge - good for them. For those who don't it is merely a 30 sec delay.
I'm still waiting for one of the godless leftists to please show me where it says, "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Just what page is it on? I've read it many times and still can't find that saying.
But i do remember finding something that said, "leftism is a crime against God, country, and humanity", and that all leftists should be eliminated". I truly believe that's what it says.
Why is there a seperation of church and state concern at all. This is a public college event where standing up and saying the pledge is volutary and not forced. You are either an adult there and can make a decision to say it or not or if you are under 18 you are with an adult who can make that decision.
To the person who can't find "separation of church and state" in the constitution, you might engage your abstract thinking cap. The founding fathers knew well the impact of a state church on those who didn't share the same belief having seen the consequences in Europe. So they insured that EVERYONE would be protected from being forced into belonging to one sect by allowing people to freely believe in what they wanted. They wanted to protect the minority from the tyranny of one belief system. This included all religions as well as those who were not believers.
The government's inscription of the phrase "In God we trust" on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase "In God we trust" as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that "we trust" "In God." Some of us do, and some of us don't; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens' children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge--affirmation of a god and all--as a daily routine.
The majority has rights to, 3:41 pm. If I go to a sports event and most of my people want to say the pledge, you don't have to join us but you have no right to stop us either.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/
Gregory Smith doesn't appreciate or understand that the US Constitution was formulated to avoid "tyranny of the majority". It's not what the majority wants, which can change from decade to decade (look at Nazi Germany!) but what the Constitution prescribes to protect all citizens equally.
Post a Comment