What Has Happened To Our Country?

[Guest Guest]

You don't get it. The atheists could have put up something that was representative of their views. Instead they chose an attack poster against Christianity. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

He does get it. That's exactly what he said. "I would have written a different last sentence." Can't you read?

[Guest 2smart4u]

He does get it. That's exactly what he said. "I would have written a different last sentence." Can't you read?

Do you minions have names or do you all go by "guest"?

[Guest Paul]

You don't get it. The atheists could have put up something that was representative of their views. Instead they chose an attack poster against Christianity. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I think I do get it, far better than you do. You’re saying that a holiday display should be positive. I agree with you. I told you, I would not have displayed what the FFRF did.

But after that I don’t know what you’re saying because you’re not making yourself clear. That’s why I write lengthy posts. You can’t adequately express most complex ideas in a few words.

Well, you say, this is simple. No, it’s not. We are a nation of 300 million people who don’t all agree with each other, and we say we believe in equal protection for everyone. That means my religion (basically, Humanism) is entitled to as much respect as yours.

Historically, it would be simple if Christians didn’t constantly insist on using government to promote their already dominant religious beliefs. Christians can display their nativity scenes on front lawns and in business windows all over the country. Why do they insist on putting them on the front lawn at town hall?

So the Supreme Court (whose significant decisions are always several pages long) came up with a rule of law that allows that to happen. They can have their display, but everyone else has to be given equal access. That’s fair, right? (There was a post not long ago about the rule of law. It’s a very important point, and of course it was completely ignored. You can’t have a nation of 300 million people without laws.)

And if you are free to promote something, everyone else has to be equally free to disagree, to criticize it. That may not be pleasant, but there’s no other way to make a rule of law that works.

Why not? Because what is pleasant and appealing to one person isn’t pleasant and appealing to someone else. Jews can put a Star of David on the lawn, and to them it’s beautiful. Someone else might not think so. It might remind them that the Old Testament says the Jews are the “chosen people,” which can be interpreted to mean that Jews are claiming to be favored by God, and you’re not. That might even offend you.

Consider the Christian nativity scene. You think it’s beautiful, right? The people at FFRF don’t think so. They see a myth that has damaged the world, and it's based on a story that says there's an eternal hell waiting for people who dare not to believe it. Viscerally, your view is more popular, but theirs is better reasoned.

The constant argument about this just like the constant complaining about taxes and roads and everything else. It’s easy to complain, but not so easy to solve problems.

But you think it’s simple, so you tell us. What rule of law would you make to resolve this conflict?

[Guest Guest]

Do you really not see your own anger? You're mocking them by calling them "far left loonies." That's hateful and not even true. Some of the people at FFRF are not on the left, they're on the right. Left-right has nothing to do with it. All you ever do is pull your pat little phrases out so you don't have to think.

The FFRF's statement is not what's wrong with our country. In the first place, FFRF doesn't control our country, far from it.

I know the people at FFRF. They're good people, not usually angry, but they do have a real bug about religion, with considerable justification, though I think they're too categorical in their denunciations. I would have written a different last sentence, but on the other hand, if Christians are going to insist on using public property to evangelize, people who think that the mainline religions have done more to undermine society than to improve it have every right to call them on it, and should.

And if you want to talk about hateful, there's nothing more hateful than a theology that says there's eternal torment in hell waiting for you if you believe in the wrong things. That's hateful and divisive and arrogant and horrible. It has done a tremendous amount of damage throughout Western Civilization. You're blind to it because you've wrapped yourself within it, so you can't see it.

If gays and lesbians had a display on the town hall's front lawn and someone posted something nearby that declared "homosexuality is a sin and an abomination," would you think that hateful? Compare and contrast. Engage in a discussion for once instead of spitting out your biases. After all, you're telling us that we're wrong and you're right. Explain your position and persuade us. Then after you've convinced us with the power of your argument, you won't have to be aggravated any more.

So I guess you're not angry when you call conservatives wingnuts?

[Guest Guest]

So I guess you're not angry when you call conservatives wingnuts?

Maybe he is. There's nothing wrong with anger if it doesn't interfere with your reason. You don't have anything but anger.

[Guest Guest]

Do you minions have names or do you all go by "guest"?

I see it's hard for you to accept the fact that more than one person doesn't agree with you.

[Guest Paul]

So I guess you're not angry when you call conservatives wingnuts?

The point is that if you're going to criticize someone for being angry and mean-spirited, you shouldn't behave the same way. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=93407

I didn't say no one should ever display anger. Sometimes it's called for.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I think I do get it, far better than you do. You’re saying that a holiday display should be positive. I agree with you. I told you, I would not have displayed what the FFRF did.

But after that I don’t know what you’re saying because you’re not making yourself clear. That’s why I write lengthy posts. You can’t adequately express most complex ideas in a few words.

Well, you say, this is simple. No, it’s not. We are a nation of 300 million people who don’t all agree with each other, and we say we believe in equal protection for everyone. That means my religion (basically, Humanism) is entitled to as much respect as yours.

Historically, it would be simple if Christians didn’t constantly insist on using government to promote their already dominant religious beliefs. Christians can display their nativity scenes on front lawns and in business windows all over the country. Why do they insist on putting them on the front lawn at town hall?

So the Supreme Court (whose significant decisions are always several pages long) came up with a rule of law that allows that to happen. They can have their display, but everyone else has to be given equal access. That’s fair, right? (There was a post not long ago about the rule of law. It’s a very important point, and of course it was completely ignored. You can’t have a nation of 300 million people without laws.)

And if you are free to promote something, everyone else has to be equally free to disagree, to criticize it. That may not be pleasant, but there’s no other way to make a rule of law that works.

Why not? Because what is pleasant and appealing to one person isn’t pleasant and appealing to someone else. Jews can put a Star of David on the lawn, and to them it’s beautiful. Someone else might not think so. It might remind them that the Old Testament says the Jews are the “chosen people,” which can be interpreted to mean that Jews are claiming to be favored by God, and you’re not. That might even offend you.

Consider the Christian nativity scene. You think it’s beautiful, right? The people at FFRF don’t think so. They see a myth that has damaged the world, and it's based on a story that says there's an eternal hell waiting for people who dare not to believe it. Viscerally, your view is more popular, but theirs is better reasoned.

The constant argument about this just like the constant complaining about taxes and roads and everything else. It’s easy to complain, but not so easy to solve problems.

But you think it’s simple, so you tell us. What rule of law would you make to resolve this conflict?

It's very simple. If the loonies at FFRF don't like Christian displays, they shouldn't look. See, conflict resolved.

[Guest Guest]

It's very simple. If the loonies at FFRF don't like Christian displays, they shouldn't look. See, conflict resolved.

No, stupid. By that logic, Christians should just put up their displays for themselves, where only they can see them.

You're really not very good at thinking are you.

[Guest Guest]

It's very simple. If the loonies at FFRF don't like Christian displays, they shouldn't look. See, conflict resolved.

You don't know that FFRF saw the Christian display. All you know is that they posted their own display. If you don't like it, don't read it.

There, I just solved your problem. Well, not quite. You're still an idiot.

[Guest Guest]

It's very simple. If the loonies at FFRF don't like Christian displays, they shouldn't look. See, conflict resolved.

So why didn't you tell that to PatRat?

*Patriot* Dec 8 2008, 07:51 PM Post #122

What is wrong with our country has just been demonstrated in Washinton by the mean-spirited atheists who placed a hateful poster next to the manger scene. These loonies could have placed a picture of Darwin, a monkey, Mother Nature, a tree or whatever else they believe in and there wouldn't have been a problem. But instead they chose to mock Christianity in a mean spirited way. What is it with all the anger among the far left loonies?

That's very simple, too. You're the same person. If you had any principles you wouldn't have to use two identities to say contradictory things.

Tell yourself that if you don't like the FFRF display, then don't look at it.

[Kris]

Are you saying that a person can't live a responsible life without going to church?

Are you saying that a person can't be a good citizen without reciting a pledge?

Aren't our lives measured more by what we do than by what we say?

This my first post here. I stumbled on this website when doing an online search. I want to say first and foremost that I am not a resident of Kearney so I do not know how much my opinion would be warranted or respected. I do feel the issue of the Pledge of Allegience is not exclusive to Kearney so I do hope it is safe to post here. First of all, I am a little shocked and surprised at the mud slinging I have been reading back and forth on this topic. I know people have strong emotions when it comes to such things as the Pledge but I believe the topic was about children reciting the Pledge. I have 3 children and my youngest is 8 years old. They recite the Pledge every day in her classroom and although I have not formally protested, I do not feel this is appropriate. Not because I am not patriotic but rather because I believe that grade school children cannot be morally or emotionally responsible for what they say. Most children do not even know what they are saying when uttering the Pledge. I did an original play a couple of years ago with a bunch of school kids (some as old as 14) about the history of America and when we got to the part about the Pledge, I had to sit down with my cast and translate the meaning of each word and phrase. Children often recite things from memory but, very often, with little cognizant understanding about what they are saying. I personally remember memorizing song lyrics and prayers and finding out years later that not only was I reciting them incorrectly, but I had no idea what those words meant to me personally. How many of us when reciting the Pledge as children got to the word indivisible and said invisible instead? That was a word we could understand even if it has no meaning in the context of the rest of the sentence. I think it is wrong to indoctrinate children before they are at the age of being able to earn knowledge for themselves. I do not have anything against the Pledge per se but as Paul has been trying so desperately to point out here, is that the PLedge is just a ritual and does not prove anything about one's loyalty to country and flag. I am against the words "Under God" in the Pledge because they were not part of the original document and were added by a bunch of Communist fearing radicals in the 1950s, and I believe that the Pledge should be all inclusive, uniting us all as American citizens.

[Guest Paul]

This my first post here. I stumbled on this website when doing an online search. I want to say first and foremost that I am not a resident of Kearney so I do not know how much my opinion would be warranted or respected. I do feel the issue of the Pledge of Allegience is not exclusive to Kearney so I do hope it is safe to post here. First of all, I am a little shocked and surprised at the mud slinging I have been reading back and forth on this topic. I know people have strong emotions when it comes to such things as the Pledge but I believe the topic was about children reciting the Pledge. I have 3 children and my youngest is 8 years old. They recite the Pledge every day in her classroom and although I have not formally protested, I do not feel this is appropriate. Not because I am not patriotic but rather because I believe that grade school children cannot be morally or emotionally responsible for what they say. Most children do not even know what they are saying when uttering the Pledge. I did an original play a couple of years ago with a bunch of school kids (some as old as 14) about the history of America and when we got to the part about the Pledge, I had to sit down with my cast and translate the meaning of each word and phrase. Children often recite things from memory but, very often, with little cognizant understanding about what they are saying. I personally remember memorizing song lyrics and prayers and finding out years later that not only was I reciting them incorrectly, but I had no idea what those words meant to me personally. How many of us when reciting the Pledge as children got to the word indivisible and said invisible instead? That was a word we could understand even if it has no meaning in the context of the rest of the sentence. I think it is wrong to indoctrinate children before they are at the age of being able to earn knowledge for themselves. I do not have anything against the Pledge per se but as Paul has been trying so desperately to point out here, is that the PLedge is just a ritual and does not prove anything about one's loyalty to country and flag. I am against the words "Under God" in the Pledge because they were not part of the original document and were added by a bunch of Communist fearing radicals in the 1950s, and I believe that the Pledge should be all inclusive, uniting us all as American citizens.

Kris, thank you for posting this, and welcome to the site. You'll probably be attacked by anonymous posters, but to me speaking the truth has always been worth it.

It's hard for most people to understand that rote recitations on a daily basis by very young children weaken the essence of patriotism, instead of strengthen it. It's also hard, apparently, for them to understand why "under God" does not belong in a pledge that should be for all of us. You've stated the case superbly in my opinion.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This my first post here. I stumbled on this website when doing an online search. I want to say first and foremost that I am not a resident of Kearney so I do not know how much my opinion would be warranted or respected. I do feel the issue of the Pledge of Allegience is not exclusive to Kearney so I do hope it is safe to post here. First of all, I am a little shocked and surprised at the mud slinging I have been reading back and forth on this topic. I know people have strong emotions when it comes to such things as the Pledge but I believe the topic was about children reciting the Pledge. I have 3 children and my youngest is 8 years old. They recite the Pledge every day in her classroom and although I have not formally protested, I do not feel this is appropriate. Not because I am not patriotic but rather because I believe that grade school children cannot be morally or emotionally responsible for what they say. Most children do not even know what they are saying when uttering the Pledge. I did an original play a couple of years ago with a bunch of school kids (some as old as 14) about the history of America and when we got to the part about the Pledge, I had to sit down with my cast and translate the meaning of each word and phrase. Children often recite things from memory but, very often, with little cognizant understanding about what they are saying. I personally remember memorizing song lyrics and prayers and finding out years later that not only was I reciting them incorrectly, but I had no idea what those words meant to me personally. How many of us when reciting the Pledge as children got to the word indivisible and said invisible instead? That was a word we could understand even if it has no meaning in the context of the rest of the sentence. I think it is wrong to indoctrinate children before they are at the age of being able to earn knowledge for themselves. I do not have anything against the Pledge per se but as Paul has been trying so desperately to point out here, is that the PLedge is just a ritual and does not prove anything about one's loyalty to country and flag. I am against the words "Under God" in the Pledge because they were not part of the original document and were added by a bunch of Communist fearing radicals in the 1950s, and I believe that the Pledge should be all inclusive, uniting us all as American citizens.

Kris, thanks for stopping by and expressing your loony views. But we've heard all that nonsense before because we have a few regular Loonies of our own.

So with all due respect, you should stay in the Land of Oz where the Kool-Aid flows freely.

[Guest Guest]

This my first post here. I stumbled on this website when doing an online search. I want to say first and foremost that I am not a resident of Kearney so I do not know how much my opinion would be warranted or respected. I do feel the issue of the Pledge of Allegience is not exclusive to Kearney so I do hope it is safe to post here. First of all, I am a little shocked and surprised at the mud slinging I have been reading back and forth on this topic. I know people have strong emotions when it comes to such things as the Pledge but I believe the topic was about children reciting the Pledge. I have 3 children and my youngest is 8 years old. They recite the Pledge every day in her classroom and although I have not formally protested, I do not feel this is appropriate. Not because I am not patriotic but rather because I believe that grade school children cannot be morally or emotionally responsible for what they say. Most children do not even know what they are saying when uttering the Pledge. I did an original play a couple of years ago with a bunch of school kids (some as old as 14) about the history of America and when we got to the part about the Pledge, I had to sit down with my cast and translate the meaning of each word and phrase. Children often recite things from memory but, very often, with little cognizant understanding about what they are saying. I personally remember memorizing song lyrics and prayers and finding out years later that not only was I reciting them incorrectly, but I had no idea what those words meant to me personally. How many of us when reciting the Pledge as children got to the word indivisible and said invisible instead? That was a word we could understand even if it has no meaning in the context of the rest of the sentence. I think it is wrong to indoctrinate children before they are at the age of being able to earn knowledge for themselves. I do not have anything against the Pledge per se but as Paul has been trying so desperately to point out here, is that the PLedge is just a ritual and does not prove anything about one's loyalty to country and flag. I am against the words "Under God" in the Pledge because they were not part of the original document and were added by a bunch of Communist fearing radicals in the 1950s, and I believe that the Pledge should be all inclusive, uniting us all as American citizens.

We encounter lots of things that are "just rituals" and "just symbols" in our daily lives. Being symbols or rituals doen't make them meaningless.

No one said that school children saying the pledge is the beginning and end of good citizenship.

[Kris]

It amazes me that most of you when not knowing what else to say resort to name calling and hurtling insults. Facts and rational arguments speak much louder to me than resorting to junior high school antics. I'm not sure what to make of the Kool-Aid remark. If you are referring to the Jim Jones massacre--If memory serves, I believe that was do to someone's religious fanaticism. I am not a fanatic. I don't like extremists of any kind. I make my decisions based on common sense and human logic and not necessarily on rituals and traditions passed down for generations that have no meaning or purpose and the only argument for doing them is that "it's always been done that way". There would be no human progress without those brave souls willing to challenge what is accepted as the norm. If you call that living in the Land of Oz, then I am happy to know I am in good company.

[Kris]

Kris, thank you for posting this, and welcome to the site. You'll probably be attacked by anonymous posters, but to me speaking the truth has always been worth it.

It's hard for most people to understand that rote recitations on a daily basis by very young children weaken the essence of patriotism, instead of strengthen it. It's also hard, apparently, for them to understand why "under God" does not belong in a pledge that should be for all of us. You've stated the case superbly in my opinion.

Thanks for the warm welcome Paul. As you predicted, it has been less than warm from others, but that's okay. It will take more than personal insults from people who don't even know me to scare me off. I have seen by reading here that you have taken alot of heat here from fellow posters but you have stuck to the facts and remained digified in defending yourself. That is refreshing to read. Thanks

[Guest Guest]

We encounter lots of things that are "just rituals" and "just symbols" in our daily lives. Being symbols or rituals doen't make them meaningless.

No one said that school children saying the pledge is the beginning and end of good citizenship.

No, but when they are done day after day for years, beginning at a time when children are too young to understand, they do lose their meaning. When they are forced on people, they lose their meaning entirely.

Then why do people go crazy when someone decides not to participate?

[Guest Guest]

No, but when they are done day after day for years, beginning at a time when children are too young to understand, they do lose their meaning. When they are forced on people, they lose their meaning entirely.

Then why do people go crazy when someone decides not to participate?

There are lots of things we teach children when they are too young to understand, that's how they learn.

If you're trying to use Paul's, this is how Nazi Germany started argument, it's a poor analogy. Really no comparison at all.

People "go crazy" because they view it as disrespectful. Not to mention that people that share Paul's view would like to remove things like the pledge completely.

[Guest Paul]

Thanks for the warm welcome Paul. As you predicted, it has been less than warm from others, but that's okay. It will take more than personal insults from people who don't even know me to scare me off. I have seen by reading here that you have taken alot of heat here from fellow posters but you have stuck to the facts and remained digified in defending yourself. That is refreshing to read. Thanks

You're welcome, and thank you for lending support. I think we need to restore a healthy civil dialogue, not just on this subject but in general. Though the extreme views you see posted on this board almost certainly do not represent the majority view in Kearny, there is considerable apathy and unawareness, not just here but all over. I grew up in an era when news had considerably more content than it has now, and people believed they could make a difference. Both of those are indispensable to the preservation of a democracy; we've lost an alarming amount of ground in both areas with the rise of cynicism and apathy, and the transformation of news into entertainment.

Someone made the point that a symbol or ritual isn't necessarily meaningless. That's true, but what the poster ignores is that rituals and symbols are what we make them. When a flag is supposed to stand for freedom, a nation or community cannot force people to stand for it, either in law or in fact, without destroying its meaning. Matthew's main reason for not standing for the pledge, from the beginning, has been that he saw the disconnect between the ideal and the practice that was supposed to be supporting it; he believed that an act of dissent was a better way to stand for the ideals the flag represents, so he sat out the pledge. No one has to agree with him, but that is what he saw, and his way of being patriotic was to sit it out. His act of dissent has generated more discussion about the pledge and the flag than anything else in recent memory here. Of course, his detractors would never acknowledge that point, much less admit that it's true.

The community's angry reaction proved that he was right. Teachers, who should have known better, berated him publicly and told him he was required to stand. I contacted the now-outgoing Superintendent of schools in Kearny, who checked with the Board's attorney and verified that Matthew was on solid ground. One teacher even apologized to him publicly, but that didn't stop a few narrow-minded students from trying to intimidate him or in a few cases even becoming violent. Most people outside Kearny aren't aware that Matthew's first public stand wasn't in standing up to a renegade teacher as a junior, but in sitting out the pledge as a freshman. What is most troubling, perhaps, is the complete and absolute unwillingness of some people to question or reconsider their own assumptions, and their willingness to hold others hostage to those assumptions even to the point of threats, intimidation and even violence.

Someone wrote that people who identify themselves as conservatives tend to define patriotism by the past (e.g., let's respect the soldiers who fought and died), while people who self-identify as liberals tend to define patriotism by the future (e.g., how does my participation or dissent advance or set back my country's commitment to its ideals). I get the point about the past, but I don't think most of the people who have displayed outrage over any dissent from or even any questioning of the pledge of allegiance get the point about the future. I say that because they never acknowledge the point. They just insist that the symbol and the ritual mean what they mean to them, and everyone else must agree. That's not an American ideal, in my opinion. We are free in this country to see the flag in our own way, even if it has a few stains on it in some people's eyes.

People who oppose dissent do not seem to realize that the flag is still a government-sponsored symbol. No matter how much Americans may support it and even revere it, if the freedom to dissent is lost, the meaning of the symbol is lost too. You can't have freedom on the cheap, which seems to be what they want. I would like it too, but freedom doesn't work that way.

[Kris]

You're welcome, and thank you for lending support. I think we need to restore a healthy civil dialogue, not just on this subject but in general. Though the extreme views you see posted on this board almost certainly do not represent the majority view in Kearny, there is considerable apathy and unawareness, not just here but all over. I grew up in an era when news had considerably more content than it has now, and people believed they could make a difference. Both of those are indispensable to the preservation of a democracy; we've lost an alarming amount of ground in both areas with the rise of cynicism and apathy, and the transformation of news into entertainment.

Someone made the point that a symbol or ritual isn't necessarily meaningless. That's true, but what the poster ignores is that rituals and symbols are what we make them. When a flag is supposed to stand for freedom, a nation or community cannot force people to stand for it, either in law or in fact, without destroying its meaning. Matthew's main reason for not standing for the pledge, from the beginning, has been that he saw the disconnect between the ideal and the practice that was supposed to be supporting it; he believed that an act of dissent was a better way to stand for the ideals the flag represents, so he sat out the pledge. No one has to agree with him, but that is what he saw, and his way of being patriotic was to sit it out. His act of dissent has generated more discussion about the pledge and the flag than anything else in recent memory here. Of course, his detractors would never acknowledge that point, much less admit that it's true.

The community's angry reaction proved that he was right. Teachers, who should have known better, berated him publicly and told him he was required to stand. I contacted the now-outgoing Superintendent of schools in Kearny, who checked with the Board's attorney and verified that Matthew was on solid ground. One teacher even apologized to him publicly, but that didn't stop a few narrow-minded students from trying to intimidate him or in a few cases even becoming violent. Most people outside Kearny aren't aware that Matthew's first public stand wasn't in standing up to a renegade teacher as a junior, but in sitting out the pledge as a freshman. What is most troubling, perhaps, is the complete and absolute unwillingness of some people to question or reconsider their own assumptions, and their willingness to hold others hostage to those assumptions even to the point of threats, intimidation and even violence.

Someone wrote that people who identify themselves as conservatives tend to define patriotism by the past (e.g., let's respect the soldiers who fought and died), while people who self-identify as liberals tend to define patriotism by the future (e.g., how does my participation or dissent advance or set back my country's commitment to its ideals). I get the point about the past, but I don't think most of the people who have displayed outrage over any dissent from or even any questioning of the pledge of allegiance get the point about the future. I say that because they never acknowledge the point. They just insist that the symbol and the ritual mean what they mean to them, and everyone else must agree. That's not an American ideal, in my opinion. We are free in this country to see the flag in our own way, even if it has a few stains on it in some people's eyes.

People who oppose dissent do not seem to realize that the flag is still a government-sponsored symbol. No matter how much Americans may support it and even revere it, if the freedom to dissent is lost, the meaning of the symbol is lost too. You can't have freedom on the cheap, which seems to be what they want. I would like it too, but freedom doesn't work that way.

Paul-I agree with you whole heartedly. It's sad that symbolism has come to be the thing that defines us as Americans or even human beings. We are supposed to be intelligent enough to be able to dissect an issue, and with our species' supreme reason and logic, make the most sense out of it as were are able with the knowledge that we currently have. That is what bothers me about organized religion. I know so many people who go to church just because it is what they think is the right thing to do with their Sunday morning and that they need to expose their children to the morality and brotherhood that they all believe exist in a church. They are not there for god, but rather for the social and political image they think it gives them. They do not want to be seen not going. How sad and phony that is. I am a recovering Christian so I know how it all works. These people are so blind sighted they do not even realize that except what exists naturally in nature, everything that is beautiful, hopeful, inspiring, and heartwarming is created by humanity. It amazes me that issues like this get people so hot under the collar that they forget that all the symbolism they so desperately cleave to is all there to unite us as human beings.

I admire your son for doing what he thinks is right. He is old enough to make that choice. I do not encourage my 8 year old daughter to sit down during the pledge because no more than she knows why she is saying it, she would not understand me asking her not to say it either. I do tell her to say "under dog" where "under god" is if she chooses. My 13 year says it that way. My 19 year old daughter just doesn't say "under" anything.

I do think the FFRF could have just left it at "be good for goodness sake" and not went on to put down or insult anyone else's beliefs. Points are always better made without the insults and name calling which doesn't seem to be understood by many who post here. I think we are from the same generation. I grew up with the news more like you described rather than the ratings race it seems to be now.

[Guest Guest]

You're welcome, and thank you for lending support. I think we need to restore a healthy civil dialogue, not just on this subject but in general. Though the extreme views you see posted on this board almost certainly do not represent the majority view in Kearny, there is considerable apathy and unawareness, not just here but all over. I grew up in an era when news had considerably more content than it has now, and people believed they could make a difference. Both of those are indispensable to the preservation of a democracy; we've lost an alarming amount of ground in both areas with the rise of cynicism and apathy, and the transformation of news into entertainment.

Someone made the point that a symbol or ritual isn't necessarily meaningless. That's true, but what the poster ignores is that rituals and symbols are what we make them. When a flag is supposed to stand for freedom, a nation or community cannot force people to stand for it, either in law or in fact, without destroying its meaning. Matthew's main reason for not standing for the pledge, from the beginning, has been that he saw the disconnect between the ideal and the practice that was supposed to be supporting it; he believed that an act of dissent was a better way to stand for the ideals the flag represents, so he sat out the pledge. No one has to agree with him, but that is what he saw, and his way of being patriotic was to sit it out. His act of dissent has generated more discussion about the pledge and the flag than anything else in recent memory here. Of course, his detractors would never acknowledge that point, much less admit that it's true.

The community's angry reaction proved that he was right. Teachers, who should have known better, berated him publicly and told him he was required to stand. I contacted the now-outgoing Superintendent of schools in Kearny, who checked with the Board's attorney and verified that Matthew was on solid ground. One teacher even apologized to him publicly, but that didn't stop a few narrow-minded students from trying to intimidate him or in a few cases even becoming violent. Most people outside Kearny aren't aware that Matthew's first public stand wasn't in standing up to a renegade teacher as a junior, but in sitting out the pledge as a freshman. What is most troubling, perhaps, is the complete and absolute unwillingness of some people to question or reconsider their own assumptions, and their willingness to hold others hostage to those assumptions even to the point of threats, intimidation and even violence.

Someone wrote that people who identify themselves as conservatives tend to define patriotism by the past (e.g., let's respect the soldiers who fought and died), while people who self-identify as liberals tend to define patriotism by the future (e.g., how does my participation or dissent advance or set back my country's commitment to its ideals). I get the point about the past, but I don't think most of the people who have displayed outrage over any dissent from or even any questioning of the pledge of allegiance get the point about the future. I say that because they never acknowledge the point. They just insist that the symbol and the ritual mean what they mean to them, and everyone else must agree. That's not an American ideal, in my opinion. We are free in this country to see the flag in our own way, even if it has a few stains on it in some people's eyes.

People who oppose dissent do not seem to realize that the flag is still a government-sponsored symbol. No matter how much Americans may support it and even revere it, if the freedom to dissent is lost, the meaning of the symbol is lost too. You can't have freedom on the cheap, which seems to be what they want. I would like it too, but freedom doesn't work that way.

Dissent for dissents sake doesn't make much sense.

[Guest Paul]

Dissent for dissents sake doesn't make much sense.

It wasn't just for the sake of dissent. It was because to him it sounded like words that most people weren't really thinking about and many probably didn't understand; so instead of taking the easy way out and following the crowd he decided that standing up for what patriotism and citizenship actually mean was more important. It was because people were making too big a deal over the ritual while there was a war going on --- into which we blindly followed a president whose motives should have been suspect from the outset --- and our liberties were being taken away. It was because people were using the ritual as an excuse not to pay attention to what was really going on. He looked at it, thought to himself "this doesn't fit" and acted accordingly to make a statement about what was going on at the time. His act wasn't going to hurt anyone, even if some people were infuriated by it, and was likely to get people to think; can't say whether some folks have actually done any thinking but they've done considerable talking and writing, which is a start. That's purposeful and focused dissent, the best kind. It's the kind of dissent that makes an important point, but you have to open your eyes, ears, heart and mind to get it. You have to think with an open mind and open heart. People forget that the main purpose of dissent is to get the community to pay attention to what is being ignored; I could understand opposing dissent if nations and peoples and cultures didn't have such a long history of ignoring their own problems, but they do have that history. So dissent of this kind is very important.

Matthew basically said all of that in his letter to the Observer four years ago. If you didn't see it, then I can only suggest that you look again.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Paul-I agree with you whole heartedly. It's sad that symbolism has come to be the thing that defines us as Americans or even human beings. We are supposed to be intelligent enough to be able to dissect an issue, and with our species' supreme reason and logic, make the most sense out of it as were are able with the knowledge that we currently have. That is what bothers me about organized religion. I know so many people who go to church just because it is what they think is the right thing to do with their Sunday morning and that they need to expose their children to the morality and brotherhood that they all believe exist in a church. They are not there for god, but rather for the social and political image they think it gives them. They do not want to be seen not going. How sad and phony that is. I am a recovering Christian so I know how it all works. These people are so blind sighted they do not even realize that except what exists naturally in nature, everything that is beautiful, hopeful, inspiring, and heartwarming is created by humanity. It amazes me that issues like this get people so hot under the collar that they forget that all the symbolism they so desperately cleave to is all there to unite us as human beings.

I admire your son for doing what he thinks is right. He is old enough to make that choice. I do not encourage my 8 year old daughter to sit down during the pledge because no more than she knows why she is saying it, she would not understand me asking her not to say it either. I do tell her to say "under dog" where "under god" is if she chooses. My 13 year says it that way. My 19 year old daughter just doesn't say "under" anything.

I do think the FFRF could have just left it at "be good for goodness sake" and not went on to put down or insult anyone else's beliefs. Points are always better made without the insults and name calling which doesn't seem to be understood by many who post here. I think we are from the same generation. I grew up with the news more like you described rather than the ratings race it seems to be now.

Why doesn't anyone besides me recognize that "Kris" is just another Paul alias. Paul usually posts a favorable response to his posts using "Guest" as the author, so this is a departure from his usual MO. (Paul-I agree with you whole heartedly.) LOL

[Guest Keith]

Why doesn't anyone besides me recognize that "Kris" is just another Paul alias. Paul usually posts a favorable response to his posts using "Guest" as the author, so this is a departure from his usual MO. (Paul-I agree with you whole heartedly.) LOL

Sounds more like you and so called "Patriot".