Kris
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Kris
-
-
What I think is that I can't believe what happened to my country during my lifetime. We became petty, selfish and stupid. (Limbaugh embodies all of that.) When I was a kid in elementary school, my teachers - in a rural community in Michigan - taught us the classic civic virtues. Those were the virtues that made the American dream possible for the vast majority. We've turned our backs on that in the name of looking out for "number one" and getting what we can for ourselves in the short term. I'm still in shock that the American people turned their backs on what I learned in the third grade. What the hell happened?
The tragic irony is that we dug ourselves into a hole. It wasn't in our self interest, and the current crisis is the proof of that.
What were the classic civil virtues? Respect others as you would want to be respected? This sort of thing? Conservatives like my parents state that the current crisis erupted from a loss of values, people doing their own thing and not adhering to authority and that schools today totally lack discipline and structure. I can somewhat see their point coming from their perspective and the persepctive for which I was raised. My parents did teach me a good value system even if it comes from a somewhat narrow minded point of view. Like poor old Tevye, they believe that we keep changing the boundaries of what is right, decent and moral. Where do we draw the line? How do we maintain a free society without everything running amok? Are the laws of humanity of respect one another enough to keep the human race from coming unraveled?
-
Like you, I came from a relatively conservative background, Roman Catholic, son of a farmer and a farmer's wife. Three older sisters. Church every Sunday, sang in the choir with Dad (great memories, especially midnight masses on Christmas and Easter). Chicken dinner had been clucking in the pen a couple hours earlier.
As a young man, I can remember literally blocking thoughts because the church forbade them as heresy - so I wouldn't think them. As a college student, I had a girlfriend who played Chava in "Fiddler." It's a great story, a genuine heartbreaker for dozens of reasons. "How can I hope to make you understand . . ." "God knows when we will see each other again." And then of course, "If I bend that far, I will break!" I found out the truth doesn't break us, it makes us stronger.
Two of my early mentors were my college roommates, along with most of the other guys on the 8th floor at South Quad, U of Michigan fall 1972 - spring 1973. Both my roommates were Jewish. (My best friend on the hall was a Sikh who wore a turban first term.) In my little farming community, we had heard about such people, but I'm not sure I really beleived in them. They were great guys, and living with them forced me to ask: "Why is my religion better than theirs." When I had no good answer, that was the beginning of the end of my days as a theist.
Does that mean that I'm more open than most people who cling to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence? More objective than average? Maybe. I know it doesn't mean what many people here insist on thinking it means - I never had a rebellious period, I just followed the evidence where it led me, once I allowed myself the freedom to do that. Most of the reactions to people like you and me are just projections into a mirror.
On the one hand, I want to respect theistic belief, but on the other hand all I can respect is the right to believe it. I can't respect its content because there's no merit to it, in my opinion. I don't mean any disrespect by that, we are more than the sum of our beliefs; it's just where the facts lead me.
I suppose all we can do is keep writing and talking, with each other and to others who don't (yet) share our views. I do think that if non-theism reaches a critical mass it will become more prevalent. For now, I would like no American president ever to say again, with complete impunity, that an atheist isn't a good American, as both Bushes did. To me, that's abominable, and what's even more abominable is knowing that the American people didn't care, not one bit.
I have found that my journey toward freethought has been the most liberating experience of my life. I was amazed at the amount of guilt and anxiety I was carrying around when I was a believer. It felt like the greatest burden was lifted and I was now free to make choices based on my own sense of morality and I found my decisions to be much more pratical and sound minded. I also became a much more kind and charitable person. It became easier to understand and forgive others because I had finally been able to forgive myself. That anger and self righteousness that is so ever present in some right ring believers is just that sense of false arrogance and pride that they need to stay on top of themselves as they constantly fall below their own expectations. The Christian philosophy is an impossible feat for humanity and believers are constantly having to be at odds with themselves about their own shortcomings. It makes them harsh and judgmental because they are trying so hard not to have their own weaknesses exposed.
I do respect some Christians (and know some) who try and live their life according to their creed. The problem I see most often is most of them are very good at being hypocritical. The bible tells them not to see the speck in their brother's eye but that is what so many of them do. They are more interested in the behavior of others than they are at improving themselves. I do not recall the remarks made by Bush senior because I was at that time, a believer, so I probably paid it no mind. Just goes to show you how people pay no attention to issues that don't effect them directly.
I learned alot about my humanity from my years in musical theatre. The song from South Pacific still rings strong in my ears "you've got to be taught to hate and fear, you've got to be taught from year to year, it's got to be drummed in your dear little ear...you've got to be taught before it's too late. Before you are six or seven or eight-to hate all the people your relatives hate..." Sad but true. When I see how young children are indoctrinated before they are even old enough to have thoughts of their own. I remember in the church watching children 4 and 5 years old walking up to the front of the church to be "saved" and their parents telling me it was their choice. No 5 year old makes a choice like that without being pressured by someone. My ex husband (who was still with the church at the time of our separation) had our 9 year old daughter endure an underwater baptism against her will because he wanted to look good for the church.
Like I said, I think people have to realize it okay to question, to disagree and as Jiminy Cricket always chirped "let your conscience be your guide" It's okay to trust your instincts, question authority and seek your own answers. Well meaning people who have passed on what they know to you may not realize that they have been misinformed as well.
-
Limbaugh happens to be one of our greatest conservative heros. He gives you the unspun truth and his vast audience recognizes that. But of course you're right and his millions of listeners are all wrong. And as far as restoring the "classic liberal ethic", forget it. Your's is a dying breed and you'll be just a footnote in history.
No-the million of people who listen to him are just brainwashed as you seem to be. He says the same things over and over again until you start thinking they are true-especially if you never listen to the other side of things. The only talent he appears to have is a gift for gab and a power to intoxicate the weak minded. Kind of like a cult leader wouldn't you say?
-
No they don't. Cite one instance of an atheist holding up Newdow as a cult figure. You can't.
I don't know the man personally, but Matthew does and so does Kris, apparently. I don't hear any of that from them. Just because you don't agree with Newdow doesn't make him hateful, malicious or cringing. The person I see cringing here is you. You can't even tolerate that we non-theists believe these things, and even less that we're becoming more vocal about it. I've seen you be hateful and malicious here, quite a lot, but not Newdow.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that all the Christians you know are freethinkers. Feethinkers believe that "beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought] Therefore, anyone who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, based on "faith," is by definition not a freethinker. Perhaps you mean something else by the word, but that is its commonly accepted meaning.
No you're right-we do not. Mike is a very educated and informed person and I admire his knowledge in regards to the issues. I do not always agree with him. The people who come to FACTS meetings are all intelligent and freethinking individuals who are not looking for a hero to worship. We do not follow blindly on his every word. But, aside from the issues which can get Mike pretty fired up, he is really quite a soft spoken individual otherwise. All these people posting this garbage are why there is so much hatred in the world. So quick to make a decision about someone based on what they are rather than who they are.
-
No, Paul, Christians are not like atheists. Atheists hold up Newdow as some kind of cult figure to be revered. In fact Newdow is a hateful, malicious individual that cringes at the sight of a Christian display. If he's your hero, you need to examine your own life. BTW, all the Christians I know are
freethinkers.
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that I said I do not always care for Newdow's methodology, so how could I then hold him up as some kind of cult figure? You are just spouting off as usual. I don't know anyone who worships Mike Newdow anymore than they worship god. He is a very educated and intelligent man who knows the law and does nothing more than pass that information on to the rest of us. There were several groups and individuals who were party to this last lawsuit. Mike has the legal background to know how to file the paperwork and so forth. The issues are not his and his alone. I would like to know how you can call Christians Freethinkers? It's an oxymoron.
-
Then I suggest your school district should also remove the Christmas Holidays from the school schedule.
It is simply called a "winter break" not a Christmas Holiday.
-
I agree with everything she said. Atheists are miserable, hateful people, Newdow is a perfect example of that. My advise to atheists; If you don't like Christian displays, don't look. Don't like to hear "so help me God" ? Stick cotton in your ears. Christians are charitable people, we don't care if you worship Mother Nature or hug a tree, just stay out of our way. We're 80+% of the population, atheists are an insignificant 3%, this is our country.
Christian are like everyone else-including Atheists. There are good ones and bad ones. They are not all generous and charitable although some are. Humanists and Atheists can also be generous and charitable. Some of the greatest philanthropists in history were freethinkers. The only miserable and hateful people are those ignorant enough to post a message such as yours.
-
You do care about Christians celebrating their faith or you wouldn't have agreed to secularize your school's Christamas show.
I did not have to secularize my Christmas show--it was already secular! It was just titled "The Christmas Toy" but it had nothing to do with the religious significance of Christmas. I was not allowed to perform it during school hours because of the word Christmas. As silly as I think that is, I support the school district for making that decision because of the very thing we are discussing here. Religion has no place in Government and public schools are government operated. I accepted this decision and did not blame the school district for making the choice they did. Even though the play was not about Christianity, the school did not want to take the position of endorsing any one belief system. That's democracy. I stand behind it
-
What a coincidence, a secular Humanist just like Paul. And you have that smug "know more than everyone else" attitude, just like Paul. Go figure.
Patriot, (odd choice of name) you don't know anything about me. Quite the contrary. I don't think I know everything but figure my brain was meant for thinking and rationalizing which is what I try and do with it. I have not always been a secular humanist. I grew up a Lutheran and later on in life became "born again" I have earned my knowledge through trial and experience and and don't follow something blindly anymore just because ther majority of people do so. Your responses to many posts here are so childish and immature and always seem to be on the offensive whenever someone makes a point that even you can't argue with. This seems to be the typical kind of response I get from the religious "right" whenever they have nothing of substance to add and just resort to hurtling insults and making assumptions.
-
For example, you would like the words "under God" removed from the pledge. Isn't that forcing your view on others?
Actually, it was someone forcing their beliefs on others that put those words there in the first place. The pledge was originally without the words "under god". They were added in the 1950's during the McCarthy years
-
Sorry Paul, thankfully your atheist views are shared by the very few. Did you notice the other day when the new Senators were sworn in they all said the words "so help me God"? Obama will say the same words at his inauguration. You atheists just can't stand the idea of Christians celebrating their faith.
If it's not the Mt. Soledad Cross, it's Christmas displays or something else. Since 80+% of the U.S. population is Christian, we can do whatever we want and
you pitiful atheists can't do anything about it except piss and moan. No matter how many times you type your long-winded diatribes here, nothing is going to change, you'll always be on the losing side, deal with it. (BTW, how does Kris feel about this, I bet she's an atheist too. LOL)
I am not an Atheist but rather a secular Humanist. I don't say there is no god but I do not live my life as if there were. So, not to disappoint you, I do agree with Paul. Just because the majority of people believe something, that does not make it true or universal for everyone. People used the believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth because the church said so. Anyone disagreeing with that was considered a heretic and suffered the consequences. We all can laugh at the silliness of that now because we know better but I am certain that in the future (probably not in my lifetime) supernatural and superstitious beliefs will be replaced by rational and reasonable thoughts made by human beings for the benefit of other human beings and the living things that occupy this planet. Until that time comes, we will continue to have wars, unjustified hate and people living in fear. What most believers don't realize is separation of church and state protects their rights as much as it does us non-believers. I don't care about Christians celebrating their faith, it's a personal thing and that is what it should remain-a personal thing.
-
This week's Kearny Observer treats us to the following "brilliant" analysis from the publisher:
"Once again, Michael A. Newdow (reportedly America's least favorite atheist) is proud to admit that he is an atheist . . ." Nothing like making your biases apparent at the beginning, Lisa. One might say that he proclaims he is an atheist. That would be more accurate. To her, it's an admission. And of course he is "America's least favorite atheist." He's challenging what the majority wants to do. She continues:
" . . . and along with other so-called atheists . . ." So-called atheists? Maybe they're real atheists. If you actually read the complaint, some of them don't call themselves atheists. But hey, why interfere with rock-solid prejudices? “Aaaaaaatheist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! "
" . . . atempted once again to create controversy and gain media coverage." Now wait a minute. Maybe they really believe that the inauguration of the President shouldn't be a church service. Maybe they really believe that "so help me God" isn't in the Constitution and therefore shouldn't be part of the oath. Maybe they're not interested in media coverage but in being treated equally in their own country. Maybe they really don't like having religion forced on them in public ceremonies like this one. Maybe they actually think they have a legal right not to have it forced on them. And so maybe they're not the ones creating the controversy. Maybe that is being done by the people who keep insisting on shoving their religion down our throats.
"God is a universal preference of many denominations and creeds. . ." Lisa, "universal" and "many" don't go together, especially in this context. If you had actually studied journalism, you might have learned that. Of course, if you had actually studied journalism . . . well, those who read this can finish that thought on their own.
"Not to believe is a choice you have, but where do we draw the line?" What line? What's so hard about rendering under Caesar what is Caesar's? Save your ideas about God for church because Americans don't agree on that subject. What's so hard? There wouldn't be a problem if people like Lisa didn't just have to have their religious beliefs pushed on everyone else. Don't blame the controversy on the few people who have the courage to push back.
"The pledge of allegiance is out of schools." What? The pledge of allegiance is mandated by most if not all the states and is recited by students all over the country every day. Does she have any idea what she's writing about?
"Prayer is a no-no and I guess we have to burn the bible and say there is no such thing as God, just to please a few atheists." No, you don't have to do that, but you do have to treat atheists, agnostics, secularists, freethinkers, humanists, etc., as equal to you in every way if you really believe in "liberty and justice for all." This isn't rocket science.
So I ask: Is this woman ******** of just ******? Case your vote here.
I know Mike Newdow and I am a member of his FACTS church here in Sacramento. He IS an atheist but more importantly than that he fights to uphold the Constitution and protect freedom for everyone. I do not always agree with his methodology but overall he is an asset to the protection of the separation of church and state. It's amazing how some people react to the title of "Atheist". I heard is the least popular thing to be. People associate faithlessness as a sign of immorality and dishonesty and figure that anyone who open states they are an atheist must be corrupt, disloyal and UnAmerican. Thanks for your commentary.
-
I have people in my extended family, very close to me, who swear by the guy. I don't understand that. It's so obvious that he makes things up. Twenty years ago I saw his program on TV. He made one of his usual ridiculous remarks. This was followed by uproarious laughter from an audience that obviously had no idea whether his remarks had any basis in fact, and didn't care; all they cared about was that people they didn't understand were demeaned. Meanwhile, Limbaugh sat basking in the glory of his faux brilliance. If pressed to say which scares me more, him or his audiences, I'm not sure.
Growing up, I never thought I'd see the USA come to this, but it has. The question now is, how do we get out of it? How do we restore the classic liberal ethic that made this country the model for the world, even through all our failures?
I guess they call his followers "dittoheads" for a reason. They obviously have no ability to think for themselves and hang on his every word as gospel truth. I also have several family members (including my former husband) who listened to him faithfully and really believed he had the pulse on the nation's problems and how to solve them. There is something charismatic abut the way he speaks that is like an opiate to his followers. Perhaps it is because he speaks so arrogantly that what he says is mistaken for knowledge because he comes across with such a confidant air. I grew up in a very conservative household and most of my family members are conservatives-proof that children learn with what they live. I persoanlly don't' know how people can stomach listening to someone who pats himself on the back as much as Rush does. Calling his show the EIB network and "talent on loan from God" quotes and other such egotistical remarks. I really can't understand how anyone can swallow that and not feel sick at their stomach. But, people who only have what they know and understand as the basis of all reality in the world have brought this country to it's present state.
As far as the question of how to get out of this? I wish I had the answer, but I'm happy to see this conversation heading in that direction, which is the reason I came here in the first place. I think the only answer is education. People need to be taught that it's okay to question authority, research and earn knowledge for themselves. We accept too readily the opinions of others, and people want so badly to be accepted by their loved ones and peers that they are willing to sacrifice their curiosity and desire for truth to be one of the masses. I am fairly new to the liberal, freethinking mentality myself. I grew up with people who all thought the same way so it never occurred to me to question anything when I was young and when I got old enough to have thoughts of my own, I dismissed them as being wrong or I was told they were wrong by someone else who never thought to question it. I remember when I started doing theatre and one of the shows I did was "Fiddler on the Roof". I played the daughter who marries the rebel but it was interesting to watch the story unfold as the father Tevye struggles to let go of his traditions one by one as his daughters one by one go against the grain of what is right and accepted in their community. He speaks proudly of these "Traditions" but admits that he does not know why they exist-they just do. I think that is the spell that our country is under, but the mistake is that so many of the "truths" that people are clinging to are not the values this country was built on. They think they are but they are misimformed and for some reason lack the desire or fortitude to do the research to enlighten themselves. I think many are afraid of the truth because that would mean they would have to totally reexamine their life (as I had done) and for some the cost is too great for that, so they would rather just go on "believing" something even if they know it might not be true. Or like Rush, ( and 2smartforU) they don't care what the real truth is, if it doesn't fit their agenda. With information so readily available as it is these days, there is really no excuse for this ignorance. What are your thoughts?
-
He's just like the kid who gets pleasure pulling the wings off flies. Some people never grow up. What's really troublesome is that an entire political ideology on the right has grown up around this sort of thing. Limbaugh isn't far removed from this sort of juvenile behavior.
Oh, believe me, I am far too familiar with the antics of Rush. Sometimes I listen to him just to make my blood boil. When he first started out here in Sacramento, although I never embraced his philosophy, I could at least appreciate that he was speaking his mind for the truth that he believed and accepted. Now, he is just a giant ball of hot air, so full of himself, who is so caught up in his "celebrity" that he has become the narrowist of the narrow. I live in Rio Linda-the town he still will make fun of on his radio show from time to time as being the "redneck" area of Sacramento, full of uneducated and uninformed people. "For those of you in Rio Linda...the 4th of July and Independence Day are the sam holiday". We have a Burger joint that has a Rush burger called the Big Mouth-aptly named. What amazes me is the power he has over the masses of people who listen to him. Talk about Kool-Aid drinkers!
-
Kris, my advice is don't waste your time. This individual, who was already posting here when I began two years ago, is a troll who delights in getting any kind of response. Your anger and frustration are his/her victory. I was able to engage him/her briefly by pointing out that he/she was my fellow American, but that didn't last long. The point seems to be that others are made to look foolish merely by being sincere and honest, and the answer to your question is no. This individual does not seem to have a clue about simple decency or the value of civil and reasoned discourse.
Thanks Paul. I thought perhaps 2 smart really did think we were one and the same person but now I am not so sure he even believes this. He is just enjoying thinking he is making me sweat over it. I'm really not and he is really not getting rise out of me either. He is frustrating only in the fact that he represents all that is wrong with the issues being discussed here. He is so quick to point an accusing finger at his neighbors and to me (someone he does not even know) and delights in seeing the aftermath of his comentary. There is something very twisted about his mentality, but being a nurse, I am always interested in new case studies.
-
Paul, you're fooling no one and making yourself look silly.
I am wondering if it is proven that Paul and I are not one and the same person if you would feel that any kind of apology is in order for your despicable and irrational behavior. Truly "smart" people research an issue, weigh the evidence and draw thier conclusions based on reasonable and rational thought. Why also do you insist on including others in your delusional accusations? ie: "fooling no one" No one else has openly come out and made any negative statements toward me except you. Unless you know the thoughts and feelings of all those represented here, keep your paranoia to yourself.
-
Welcome to Kearny.
I am beginning to think Sacramento isn't that bad after all
-
Paul, your fingerprints are all over this post. Give it up and stick to "Guest" postings to support your long-winded ramblings.
I see you will not accept my challenge. Like so many closed minded individuals, you have decided what is true and you will stick to it regardless of how big a fool you make of yourself and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary. But, it seems like this has been your MO here all along from what I have read in archives. But, you can go on thinking that I am Paul, that's okay. He writes intelligently and tends to stick to the issues which is what I decided to post here in the first place.
-
Give it up, Paul. What a pathetic attempt to raise a "patriotic display" issue.
You are just not going to give up believing that I am Paul are you? You should change your screen name, seriously. Now, I see how some people make up their minds in Kearny. They make an assumption about something, with no proof, and then just start hurling accusations. Like I said in my post on the other topic-I came here hoping to engage in intelligent conversation and possibly healthy debate regarding the issues but I can see anything I say is going to fall under the scrutiny of closed minded, ignorant and arrogant individuals such as this. You are such a hypocrite-whoever you are. You don't even have the guts to post under your true name but then have the audacity to draw conclusions about the identity of others. Send me a personal message with your email address and I will do the same, then we can straighten this out once and for all. I dare you!
-
They're religious kooks. Their religion teaches them to believe whatever they want and to make things up if that's what's necessary to maintain their beliefs. "Lie for Jesus." I can't stand these people.
It's even more amazing that they can all accept the nut job stories in the bible on faith alone but cannot accept something that could fairly easily be proven. Not that I should have to prove anything. I came here hoping to engage in intelligent conversation and even healthy debate about the topics displayed and I fully expected that there would be people who would not agree with me, I can handle that, but I never expected that my identity would be challenged, especially by someone who doesn't even have the guts to use their real name.
-
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
You should definately change your screen name. It most certainly does not apply in this case. Why don't you use your real name like I did? I guess that is one thing I do have in common with Paul.
-
To Kris,
Congratulations, you've been initiated. Most who express agreement with Paul get accused of this by this guy sooner or later. Looks like you got it sooner.
Since you're new here, a bit of history: 2smart4u has frequently been suspected of sock-puppetry himself. I won't make any firm accusation of that, as I've seen too many cases where different people of similar ideology just happen to have suspiciously similar writing styles. But, even so, those suspicions have much stronger supporting evidence than 2smart's accusations towards others. But he keeps on accusing, apparently based on no more evidence than someone having expressed agreement with his perceived arch nemesis, or for having expressed themselves intelligently, as Paul would do. Maybe this is out of resentment for having been falsely accused himself, or maybe it is due to some strange psychological need to project his own misdeeds on others. Maybe some mix of the two. I can only speculate at what the cause is, but I'm certain of one thing that it isn't. And that is that there's any good reason to think that you actually are a Paul sock puppet.
I am amazed at the amount of paranoia (amongst other things) that exist on this website! It's unbelievable! Thanks William K for explaining the background. As I said in a previous post, I don't think Paul needs my help, let alone having to impersonate others to prove his points or make it seem like he has a "fan base". You people are ridiculous. Are you so one sided that you can't see how someone can agree with someone you all disagree with? I am not Paul and like a said before, I am not even a resident of Kearny. I am a middle aged single mother of 3 children who lives on the other side of the country from you all and I guess I should be thankful for that! But, perhaps you will not believe it even if someone tapes me...Oops, guess I shouldn't be saying that. I feel like that episode of the Twilight Zone where all the neighbors turn on each other out of fear. In this case, fear of the truth, not aliens. Wow! We have met the enemy and he is us.
-
It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew. A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.
You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.
This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.
I am a teacher of sorts. I teach theatre in a public school system. Even though I am not an employee of the district, I still have to use common sense when approached by my students about certain topics. We did a show a few years ago called "America Rocks" about the history of our country and had to deal with a student who did not want to wear a red, white and blue sparkly hat because she thought it was unpatriotic. As silly as I thought that was I had to make it work without a lecture about my personal beliefs. We also just did a show called the "Christmas Toy" Even though this show contained nothing about the religious significance of Christmas, we were unable to perform the play during school hours because it contained this word. I also was unable to perform the song Aquarius in another show because of the religious beliefs of parents of some of these students. (I fought that one however) I have a great number of young actors with varied belief systems. They have no idea that I am a Secular Humanist because I do not discuss it. It has nothing to do with me teaching them the art of theatre. This teacher should have known better whether the student egged on the conversation or not. He is the adult with all the years of teaching behind him and should not have been manipulated in this way. But, when you listen to the tape, he does not sound manipulated at all. He sounds more than willing to answer the question and add his own spin to it. As many years as this had been going on, it is hard for me to believe this was the first time he was called on it. Perhaps other students (or their parents) had complained and nothing was ever done about it because the teacher always had "plausible deniability" so to speak. Only when evidence was presented that was undeniable did the teacher fess up in then react in anger. If Matthew thinks of himself as an activist (and this has been known since grade school) then it can only be stupidity that would motivate a teacher to challenge such a student with illegal activity, which only weakens his case further. If Matthew is truly an activist, then it is his job and responsibility to do what he did. That seems to be the only way positive change can be implemented in this world is for a few brave individuals to go against the grain and stand up for what is right. Who was it who said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing"
-
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.
hypocrisy - reaction to British bus campaign
in Kearny
Posted
Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves. I have counted well over one hundred different denominations of Christianity in this country (I am certain there are more) and they argue and they fuss and they split from one another, and they even call each other names and show little respect for the common ground they do have. When are you going to get it? The pledge was written in the 1890s and altered in the 1950s by the Communist fearing government at the time. The original author of the pledge did not include these words so it is no longer the same pledge. IN God We Trust was added to money during the civil war also for political reasons and pressure from religious groups. The motto of the USA is E PLuribus Unum. (from many, one) Much more appropriate for the land of free and the melting pot of the world.