KHS Uniform Committee Meeting

[Guest Guest]

I would like to live in a country that fully lives up to the founding principles of this country: freedom and justice for everyone, equality under the law, dedication to common purpose and the common welfare under a system whereby all people are free to pursue happiness in their own ways. I would also like our country to leave people free to practice the religion of their choice, government staying completely out of it.

Maybe we disagree on those core principles. You tell me.

Or maybe we see the means of their attainment differently. That seems more likely.

As a lawyer, I understand how legal systems work and how they fall apart. The area of law we’re discussing is constitutional law, a field that is especially built on legal principles. I say especially because even though most of the law is based on legal principles, this is nowhere more true than in constitutional law.

Most Americans right now have the mistaken notion that you can violate separation of church and state in small ways without paving the way for bigger violations. What they don't understand is that legal principles are set by precedent; once the courts break a principle, it is broken, regardless how "big" or "small" the case was that broke it.

To me, it’s very simple. There’s no reason for government to promote or discourage religion, which does fine on its own. So there’s no reason for “In God We Trust” to be on our currency, because that view does not speak for the growing minority of us who do not believe in God as traditionally conceived. This is not something we need the majority to rule on. If we have a motto or other statement on our currency, it should be acceptable to all of us regardless of religion. There’s no reason for “under God” in the pledge, because in that context it’s not true. Every good American should be able to recite that pledge because. "Under God" makes that impossible for many millions of us, and growing. When you shove your religion down the throats of us who don’t want it, you diminish the integrity of this country’s founding principles in practice – and there’s no reason for it.

The usual excuse is that these are just civic exercises, not promotion of religion. Yet every time one of these issues comes up, pandering politicians shout “under God” as loudly as they can, making it abundantly clear that they are on the side of God-believing folk and against those of us who disagree. Interest groups make it clear that what they really want is to declare this nation to be a Christian nation, or a God-believing nation. You can’t do that and maintain a free and equal country. You must choose between pushing your religion on an unwilling minority, versus letting religion flourish in the hearts, minds, churches, temples, meeting halls and synagogues of those who freely choose to practice it. When you let religion flourish freely, both it and the nation are better for it.

You have the power to choose inequality, which is what you have been doing. You have the power to refuse to vote for political candidates solely because they do not believe in what you call “God” or, even more restrictively, are not Christian - just like our forbears had the power to take the land from the Native Americans and enslave Africans whom they transported here on ships against their will. You don’t like the comparison, and I don’t like making it. You have the power, but not the moral right.

You may not like it, but I will argue this case because it is the truth. I am proud and grateful to live in a country that allows me this freedom, but at the same time I expect no less. It is the right thing to do.

Millions of you? I think your way off, even if you included the world's population. You have the right to argue all you like. What you don't like is the fact that this country was formed by people that believed very strongly in god and religion. When you have a majority that believe as you do then maybe you can change things.

You say that you believe in some conception of god. Why does the pledge irk you so?

[Guest Guest]

Why, then, has support for Matthew always been in the majority from the first day the Paszkiewicz story hit the media and made it a nationally-known topic?

YOU are the one who is wrong. Most people DO want the Constitution preserved, as well as personal liberty. Yours is a dying breed, thank God.

Really? Prove it. Most people thought this was so petty they didn't even give it a thought.

I doubt that the Constitution needs an underhanded weasel to protect it.

[Guest Guest]

Then maybe Paul should fix the law instead of constantly whinning here about it.

Uh, Paul is the one sticking up for the law--it's his denigrators that want things to be different than the way the law says.

Maybe living in a Christian country is what the founding fathers wanted, but since they are all dead, we cannot ask them.

The Treaty of Tripoli was passed unanimously while basically all of the founding fathers were still alive. This Treaty (treaties are effectively law under the Constitution, remember) contains an article which clearly states that the Unites States is not founded on Christianity.

Maybe nothing. It's obvious that's not what they wanted.

Maybe religion is a good thing, just maybe.

Paul is a very religious person. Your implication that "religion" doesn't include his religion is dishonest. Paul's never said that religion is itself a bad thing, so that comment is dishonest too.

People cling to it for faith and hope that this world will be a better place. Maybe that is not a bad thing.

Hope is a good thing. False hope isn't. This is the difference between faith based on superstitions and faith based on universal humanity.

[Guest Guest]

Let me see. His exact words and I quote were: ""My protest is to save my freedom and yours. " If that is not representing me then I do not know what is.

The only reason you don't appreciate his efforts is because on this issue you are in the majority. It's very short-sighted of you not to appreciate his efforts.

Either you are his mother or his wife. I haven't figured that part out yet. But if you consider him being paranoia and schizophrenia normal then you do deserve one another. Kearny is a simple place much like most of America. If you think its normal for someone to always be looking for a fight then that is your prerogative. As far as his points they are all pretty useless to me, much like your response to me.

Yeah, so useless that you took the time to respond. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Guest Guest]

When you get a majority to have the phrase changed then so be it.

How disgustingly unamerican. What part of libery and justice for ALL don't you understand?

Might does not make right. If everyone thought like you, we'd still have slavery in this country. Women still wouldn't be allowed to vote. Interracial marriage wouldn't be allowed either.

You make me sick.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The reason our country is in so much trouble is that idiots like this have been controlling our elections for a long time. Politicians pander to the least common denominator, and people like this, Patriot, 2smart4u and others are the least common denominator. They're ignorant and proud of it.

Paul has asked excellent questions. These idiots will never answer them.

1. They don't understand them.

2. They've been trained by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter and their babbling fundamentalist preachers that belief is truth. They don't respect learning or education or accepted methods of reason. "I believe it, end of story." That's how they think.

They're going to kill this country if we don't stop them.

That's why what Matthew is doing is so important.

Go get 'em, Matt and Paul. Intelligent people are behind you. But we need a majority.

This is your brain on drugs.

[Guest Guest]

I thought this was about uniforms at the high school?

Apparently no one has anything to say about that, including you.

[Guest Guest]

Let me see. His exact words and I quote were: ""My protest is to save my freedom and yours. " If that is not representing me then I do not know what is. Either you are his mother or his wife. I haven't figured that part out yet. But if you consider him being paranoia and schizophrenia normal then you do deserve one another. Kearny is a simple place much like most of America. If you think its normal for someone to always be looking for a fight then that is your prerogative. As far as his points they are all pretty useless to me, much like your response to me.

Like it or not, we live as one nation under one Constitution. We have one Supreme Court, one President and one set of laws at a time. Last time I checked, Kearny was still part of the USA. Matthew may not have put it well, but he's right and you're wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Then maybe Paul should fix the law instead of constantly whinning here about it. Maybe living in a Christian country is what the founding fathers wanted, but since they are all dead, we cannot ask them. Maybe religion is a good thing, just maybe. People cling to it for faith and hope that this world will be a better place. Maybe that is not a bad thing.

One way to change the law is to talk to your community.

Religion can be a good thing, but forcing it on others is not.

[Guest Guest]

Millions of you? I think your way off, even if you included the world's population. You have the right to argue all you like. What you don't like is the fact that this country was formed by people that believed very strongly in god and religion. When you have a majority that believe as you do then maybe you can change things.

You say that you believe in some conception of god. Why does the pledge irk you so?

The only change necessary is a Supreme Court that believes in what the Constitution says. It is a completely secular document.

You shouldn't need a majority of non-Christians for non-Christians to have equal rights and equal treatment. Anyone who is truly Christian, in the spiritual sense, understands that.

[Guest Guest]

This is your brain on drugs.

This is why only 27% of Americans are registered Republicans.

[Guest Guest]

Really? Prove it. Most people thought this was so petty they didn't even give it a thought.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22matthew+...-8&oe=utf-8

There's your proof. Tell me how many search results you have to go through before you find one that is critical of Matthew.

I doubt that the Constitution needs an underhanded weasel to protect it.

People who would be so disrespectful to one of the few people truly fighting for the Constitution are the ones who are truly under-handed. The teacher who lied his ass off in an attempt to get the board to ignore Matthew, and all of the people who denigrated, threatened, and lied about this student and defending the teacher who had been caught using a classroom as a pulpit, and caught lying about his preaching, the people who spread lies about Matthew and the rest of his family in a desperate attempt to tarnish his name...those are the under-handed. Those are the pitiable. And those are the people who are fighting against the Constitution.

I've said it before--Matthew shouldn't be someone special, but he is because his passion for justice and for preserving the Constitution is so frustratingly rare, that he stands out as a hero in the sea of fools who think that it's right for Christians to have dominion over everyone else, and that non-Christians should be treated as second-class citizens.

[Guest Guest]

Millions of you? I think your way off, even if you included the world's population. You have the right to argue all you like. What you don't like is the fact that this country was formed by people that believed very strongly in god and religion.

You mean like Jefferson, a man so digusted with the mysticism and superstition in the Bible that he wrote his own version of it with all of the miracles and stuff omitted?

Or like Ben Franklin, the man who famously said that lighthouses are more useful than churches?

You're the one who doesn't like the facts. In fact, you dislike them so much that you endeavor to cover them up with lies, like you just did above.

When you have a majority that believe as you do then maybe you can change things.

Revoltingly unamerican. Might doesn't make right, and this country's Constitution was constructed intentionally so that such a thing would DIRECTLY violate it. That's just not how this country works; if you think it is, then you are really ignorant of American history, and of the Constitution itself.

You say that you believe in some conception of god. Why does the pledge irk you so?

It's not the pledge, it's the exclusive phrase that was injected into it in a time of McCarthyist paranoia, and has no place being there. How would you feel if the pledge said "one nation, under Allah?" Think about it seriously for a few minutes.

The pledge should not exclude anyone. The pledge says all it needs to say in its original form. How about you answer this question: why does the phrase "under God" need to be there all of a sudden? This country did just fine for almost two centuries without that phrase there, after all.

[Guest Guest]

This is your brain on drugs.

All this talk about god makes me think god going to mke the Kearny uniforms, I have faith that he'll pick the right colors lol.

[Guest Paul]

Millions of you? I think your way off, even if you included the world's population. You have the right to argue all you like. What you don't like is the fact that this country was formed by people that believed very strongly in god and religion. When you have a majority that believe as you do then maybe you can change things.

You say that you believe in some conception of god. Why does the pledge irk you so?

I’m not off at all. Millions of Americans do not believe in any traditional conception of God. Arguing that the words “under God” encompass my view would be inaccurate historically. Those words were inserted during the McCarthy witch-hunt era, one of the darkest periods in our history, to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union, which was officially atheistic. We had many good reasons as a nation to oppose the Soviet Union. Its suppression of theistic religion was one of them. It’s non-affiliation with theistic religions was not. There is no doubt that the historical God of the pledge of allegiance is theistic.

I can endorse several conceptions of God. In essence, God is the divine, the highest ideal or best possible state of affairs. It’s a principle and a way of looking at things, not a being. There are other excellent conceptions of God, including Paul Tillich’s ground of being.

There are at least two ways of looking at the pledge of allegiance. One, I believe is consistent with a universal ethic and is therefore just, while the other is excessively nationalistic and not consistent with a universal ethic and is therefore unjust.

The first view of the pledge is as a stated commitment to the core principles of liberty and justice for all. There’s a real value in having children recite a commitment to “liberty and justice for all” every day, even though we haven’t fully lived up to that commitment. To that extent, I think the pledge is a good way of reminding children of what our country is (supposed to be) about. The hypocrisy is troubling, but on balance putting up with the hypocrisy may be a worthwhile price to pay for the reinforcement of these principles.

Unfortunately, the other way of looking at the pledge appears to be dominant right now and for quite some time. Most people see it as a statement of national unity and infallible righteousness. Two other elements that give me pause are the idea of pledging allegiance to a flag, which strikes me as ridiculous, and the divisive and unnecessary words “under God.” Every good citizen should be able to recite the national pledge in good conscience. Those two words alone cannot be uttered in good conscience by millions of Americans. Therefore, they should not be in there.

Nations go through periods in their history. Since Reagan became president, we have been in an anti-intellectual, even stupid period. We’ve been neglecting our most important forward-looking issues, such as energy independence, green technologies and fiscal planning for our future as the large baby-boom generation heads into retirement. We’ve been deluding ourselves with the idea that taxes will never be raised again, and that all we need do is snap our fingers to make terrorism go away. The fourth estate has all but turned into a national joke, as journalistic standards have been eroded in the interests of packaging news as entertainment. (This fact alone puts the lie to the idea that the media are liberally biased.)

These past three decades have been a time of excessive nationalism, in which the idea of patriotism has gotten wrapped around symbols instead of service. Contrast the ethic of our time, for example, with John F. Kennedy’s call to “ask what you can do for your country.”

In such times as ours, ritual ceremonies like the pledge of allegiance become more of an impediment than an aid to national purposes. Couple that with the growing unwillingness to tolerate the dissent of even one person from the ritual, and the accompanying ugliness, and you may begin to see some very dangerous trends. I thought Matthew expressed it very well in his letter from a few years ago (http://barnson.org/node/640):

“Our country has taken many dangerous turns lately. We have given away many of our freedoms through the so-called Patriot Act. Radical elements threaten to turn our democracy into a theocracy. Groups the majority does not understand, like homosexuals, intellectuals and liberals, are regularly treated with scorn, contempt and disrespect.”

“. . . when you declare my protest out of bounds, you feed the process by which societies have destroyed their own freedoms and created tyrannies. You may think we Americans are different, but we are not. There is nothing new about this. We are no different than any society that has ever gone through its own tragic undoing. American "unity" is looking more and more like the "unity" that has led to every tyranny the world has ever known. It is reactive, unthinking, and contemptuous of dissent. It shouts slogans and reviles those who decline to participate in its rituals. It employs pretty symbols like yellow ribbons to make people feel good about an ugly war. It demands unquestioning conformity.

“Whether a group is standing for the Pledge or raising an arm and shouting ‘Sieg Heil!,’ the process is exactly the same. You may not like that comparison. I do not like having to make it. You cannot reasonably acknowledge the evil of torturing people for dissent, and then on the other hand complain that dissent is out of bounds. A freedom is meaningless if no one ever uses it. If the current attitude continues to prevail, our freedoms will continue to be eroded, and we will become the very thing we have so long opposed.”

I think he is absolutely right. No nation has ever held onto its dominance for long. Most great powers have declined. We are exhibiting all the signs of such a decline, including denial. In such times, the historical inclination has been toward more shouting and less thinking, contempt for anything different, and a stubborn insistence on clinging to the past, as though the clock could be turned back by a sheer act of will. So in essence, my beef is that people are misusing the pledge almost as one would use a narcotic, with similar effects.

Finally, it should not be necessary for people in religious minorities to rally a majority to our side. The founding principles of this country should preserve religious liberty and equality for everyone, no matter what religions are most popular or unpopular at any given time.

You have asked a good question. Let's have a real discussion this time, where all sides try to understand the others, elevate the discussion and learn from each other.

[Guest Guest]

All this talk about god makes me think god going to mke the Kearny uniforms, I have faith that he'll pick the right colors lol.

There's "English As A Second Language" classes available, you should give it a try.

[Guest Guest]

1. Really? Prove it. Most people thought this was so petty they didn't even give it a thought.

2. I doubt that the Constitution needs an underhanded weasel to protect it.

1. And yet somehow it's still the most discussed topic here a year and a half later.

2. Bush and Cheney aren't protecting the Constitution.

[Guest Guest]

There's "English As A Second Language" classes available, you should give it a try.

Don't be a grammar Nazi when your own grammar is lacking. Neither "as" nor "a" are capitalized in that title; that's why such classes are abbreviated "ESL" and not "EAASL".

[Guest Guest]

How about;

one nation, of Happy Humans, with liberty and justice for all.

[Guest Guest]

You mean like Jefferson, a man so digusted with the mysticism and superstition in the Bible that he wrote his own version of it with all of the miracles and stuff omitted?

Or like Ben Franklin, the man who famously said that lighthouses are more useful than churches?

You're the one who doesn't like the facts. In fact, you dislike them so much that you endeavor to cover them up with lies, like you just did above.

Revoltingly unamerican. Might doesn't make right, and this country's Constitution was constructed intentionally so that such a thing would DIRECTLY violate it. That's just not how this country works; if you think it is, then you are really ignorant of American history, and of the Constitution itself.

It's not the pledge, it's the exclusive phrase that was injected into it in a time of McCarthyist paranoia, and has no place being there. How would you feel if the pledge said "one nation, under Allah?" Think about it seriously for a few minutes.

The pledge should not exclude anyone. The pledge says all it needs to say in its original form. How about you answer this question: why does the phrase "under God" need to be there all of a sudden? This country did just fine for almost two centuries without that phrase there, after all.

Jefferson wrote his bible because he thought so much about god and religion. As for Franklin, he may not have been big on organized religion, but that didn't stop him from being buried in Christ Church Burial Ground along with several other Founders. I guess he was hedging his bets.

One nation, under Allah promotes a specific religion. One nation, under god does not.

The phrase can be part of the pledge because Abe Lincoln used it and that's good enough for me.

[Guest Guest]

Jefferson wrote his bible because he thought so much about god and religion.

He wrote it because he liked Jesus's philosophy, but hated all of the superstitious nonsense of miracles and so on.

As for Franklin, he may not have been big on organized religion, but that didn't stop him from being buried in Christ Church Burial Ground along with several other Founders. I guess he was hedging his bets.

I suppose Franklin had full control over his corpse after death, then?

One nation, under Allah promotes a specific religion. One nation, under god does not.

1. Yes, it does. "God", capitalized, means the Judeo-Christian god.

2. There's also the fact that the phrase excludes certain religions and the non-religious. Why should the pledge keep a phrase that doesn't include all American citizens?

The phrase can be part of the pledge because Abe Lincoln used it and that's good enough for me.

So having your beliefs validated is more important than American unity. Pitiful.

[Guest Guest]

How about;

one nation, of Happy Humans, with liberty and justice for all.

lol, what about the Americans with depression?

But in all seriousness, I see no problem with just going back to the original pledge; it worked fine for nearly two hundred years, so why change it, especially in a way that is divisive?

[Guest Guest]

Jefferson wrote his bible because he thought so much about god and religion. As for Franklin, he may not have been big on organized religion, but that didn't stop him from being buried in Christ Church Burial Ground along with several other Founders. I guess he was hedging his bets.

One nation, under Allah promotes a specific religion. One nation, under god does not.

The phrase can be part of the pledge because Abe Lincoln used it and that's good enough for me.

The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even drafted until 1892, some 27 years after Lincoln was assassinated. It didn't contain the words "under God" until 1953. If Lincoln used it in another context, that was his business. He would not have approved forcing it on people. You don't know what you're talking about.

You also don't know what you're talking about with Jefferson. For him, God was not what is described in the Bible. He was a religious man, but not a theist. He would have been disgusted with forced displays of religious belief. He would have recognized instantly that they are contrary to everything that both religion and democratic government are about.

It doesn't matter what Franklin or any of Framers or any of us believes personally about whatever each of us calls God. Religion is a private matter. It belongs to each of us individually, not to the state. To you, "under God" may not promote a specific religion, but to the millions of non-theists in the United States, it does. You cannot tell another person what a word means to him.

The question is: why do you insist on making people say what they do not believe? Our country grew strong without it, and would be as strong or stronger today without it.

You never answer that question, even though it is the only question that really matters here. So I ask again, why must you insist on this, knowing that it violates the conscience of millions of good and patriotic Americans?

[Guest Guest]

How about;

one nation, of Happy Humans, with liberty and justice for all.

How about the original language:

"one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It worked just fine for 61 years, and we did just fine as a nation for 101 years before that with no Pledge of Allegiance at all. What's the problem? What's the big urgency? There is no need for this. If it's going to divide us, and it is, we'd be better off without it.

[Guest Patriot]

The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even drafted until 1892, some 27 years after Lincoln was assassinated. It didn't contain the words "under God" until 1953. If Lincoln used it in another context, that was his business. He would not have approved forcing it on people. You don't know what you're talking about.

You also don't know what you're talking about with Jefferson. For him, God was not what is described in the Bible. He was a religious man, but not a theist. He would have been disgusted with forced displays of religious belief. He would have recognized instantly that they are contrary to everything that both religion and democratic government are about.

It doesn't matter what Franklin or any of Framers or any of us believes personally about whatever each of us calls God. Religion is a private matter. It belongs to each of us individually, not to the state. To you, "under God" may not promote a specific religion, but to the millions of non-theists in the United States, it does. You cannot tell another person what a word means to him.

The question is: why do you insist on making people say what they do not believe? Our country grew strong without it, and would be as strong or stronger today without it.

You never answer that question, even though it is the only question that really matters here. So I ask again, why must you insist on this, knowing that it violates the conscience of millions of good and patriotic Americans?

America is 80+% Christian, we want "Under God" in our pledge. And we don't care what the loony atheists want or think. If you object that

much move to Iran. Is that clear enough for you?