COSTA MESA, Calif. ? Student leaders at a community college voted to drop the Pledge of Allegiance after a tense meeting in which one flag-waving pledge supporter berated them as anti-American radicals.Orange Coast College’s student trustees voted Wednesday not to recognize the pledge, with three of the five board members saying it should be dropped from their meetings.Board member Jason Ball argued that the pledge inspires nationalism, violates the separation between church and state with the phrase “under God,” and is irrelevant to the business of student government. He cited a 2002 San Francisco federal appeals court ruling ? later dismissed by the Supreme Court on a technicality ? that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.Sophomore Chris Belanger, one of several students who attended the meeting to support keeping the pledge, waved an American flag and accused the board of “radical views and anti-Americanism.”
phreedm
Ellen had answers for O’Reilly’s charge of bigotry, but he wouldn’t allow her to give them. Every time she started to speak, he bull-dozed right over her. She, for the most part, allowed him to rant. Made him look rabid, but she didn’t really get to make a good point. So that was a bit ineffective.
I watched most of the rest of the show. He didn’t take that stance with any other guests. He was quite the suck-up to some, actually.
THanks, DVanW, and spanders,for clarifying my point for me.
As to the polls, as Alex pointed out, polls are polls. If you are referring to polls cited on THIS NGB site, I don’t see how you can fault Ellen for not matching their numbers, unless it was she who did the citing. (I can’t even remember what discrepancies you might mean—I didn’t notice). This blog is facilitated through AA, as I understand it, but Ellen doesn’t participate.
Phreed, WTF are you smoking? Where in this story do you find “forced his own personal views”? Are you saying that since ONE person wants to begin meetings with the Pledge, then everyone should? I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that the ONE who wants to recite the pledge is more than welcome to come into the meeting, face the flag, and recite the pledge. He would then get along with the meeting. The MAJORITY of the members voted to drop it from the meeting.
What happened? You like the majority, don’t you? You’ve implied before that since the majority of americans believe in god, we atheists should shut up and deal with it. What happened?
I liked to see O’Reilly try his crap with Dawkins, especially after seeing how easily Dawkins handles himself around similar obnoxious blow hards at lectures, on the radio, and on television. Now that would be entertainment!
r4d,
Actually I don’t think Dawkins handles himself too well at all with O’Reilly(esc) people.
Not that he does a bad job, and is certainly better than average, but I think he has a long way to go to come across as an effective sppeaker in unfair environments.
I think Shermer does a lot better in the role.
HeatheNZ,
example?
r4d,
Wow – you want examples? ummmmm.
Please bear in mind that this is just personal opinion….
Well my mind returns to Dawkins conversation with Haggard. I thought he was flustered somewhat. Also I recall a conversation on “the root of all evil” with an Arab where the gentleman said that he (Arab) should kill Dawkins for being an atheist.
Dawkins seems prone to move quickly to incredulity or intellectual outrage rather than maintaining a calm demeanor.
The few times I’ve seen Shermer in a round table discussion, he has seemed by comparison more calm and willing to communicate.
I will say however that I thought Dawkins did wonderfully well on Colbert’s show a few weeks ago.
I’m all for Dawkin’s message (and then some), but I think his delivery needs some polish.
HZ
I thought big D did well with Colbert too, but then, it WAS Colbert…
That’s the only time I’ve seen Dawkins in action, either interview or debate-style. Curse my dial-up connection!
HeatheNZ
Okay, I see what you’re saying.
My point is that is why i think he would be perfect on O’Rielly. O’Rielly doesn’t give his advisories the benefit of responding effectively with a ‘calm demeanor.’ The O’Rielly Factor is pretty much a shouting match anyway – that’s the format. It certainly isn’t a round table discussion among intellectuals.
And as much as I like Shermer, I fill he tends to skirt around the religious issue to the point of being counter productive in his own way. I think I know the discussion you’re referring to (PBS’ ‘A Question Of God” ?) and there he was pretty effective because he was in a room full of people willing to politely hash out the ‘question.’ But on O’Rielly??? I have a feeling he’d just be another overly polite yet smirking token advisory for target practice – unless of course the subject was environmentalism in which case him and O’Rielly might end up acting like bosom buddies.
O’Rielly vs. Dawkins… that does have a bit of a ring to it.
Oh, I would just like to add that if some crazy Islamic fundamentalist were to tell me that (paraphrasing) he “hates atheists because they let women dress like whores and the armies of Islam will take over the world unless we beat our women properly blah blah blah” I would probably get a little flustered too (and scared.) And Haggard — well, I was always scared of that dude. I think living in the Lents district of Portland, the “Meth Capital of the World,” has caused me to develop some sort of intuitive ‘twea-dar’ (tweaker radar.)
r4d,
I think it would take a special person to make a good impression on the O’Reilly factor. To do so may not reflect favourable on the rest of one’s persona.
I agree that I am criticizing Dawkins for his performance in tough situations where I would personally have fallen flat on my face. My point is not that he’s a bad spokesman – just that I think there is plenty of room for improvement.
Off-topic news: those poor kids receiving presents from “Toys for Tots” will have to go without their talking Jesus dolls this year…
Toys for Tots rejects Jesus dolls
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) — A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves’ Toys for Tots program.
A Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the 1 foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season…
(link below has full article)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/toy.jesus.ap/index.html
I think Dawkins’ main handicap is that he has never experienced belief, therefor he has trouble empathizing. But from what I’ve seen and read, he is trying.
Bones>Phreedm
Exactly. The pledge should be a voluntary act. It was, in that case democratically decided against, though no one was forced NOT to pledge.
Phreedm, you support for O’Reilly undermines your credibility as a member of the human race.
Elliejay,
Thanks for the good advice.
I think, since I’m just a sub for now, that I will bide my time until I’m a full-time teacher. IF I ever have a child who won’t stand for the pledge for WHATEVER reason, you bet I will have a big discussion on rights and personal choice.
Actually, tomorrow in Social Studies, we are going to be discussing rights and responsibilities . . . . . might be a good opportunity to give the students a lesson in civil rights!!!
My Physics teacher, who is atheist, says the pledge every day, he just omits the undergod part, totally skips it. I, just don’t say it all together, really I am at the point where I want to sit in class while it is being said as a protest, but I feel that is a little much because of respect.
Anyone else get pissed off about how, even with undergod in the pledge, no one says it right? I don’t know how it is where you guys are at in the states, but where I am people say one nation, undergod instead of one nation undergod. There is this pause before they say undergod and it makes no sense and I get a feeling like they are trying to emphasize the undergod part. So stupid.
CAL… I think it’s a weird rhythmic thing. Everyone gets used to dividing it up by line. From the moment you learn it you repeat it in the same rhythmic way.
I pledge alLIEgance
to the FLAG
of the UNITED STATES of America
And to the republic
For which it stands
One Nation
Under God
Indivisible
with Liberty and Justice for All.
Every time I’ve heard it there’s a big pause between each line. Everyone just says it that same way, all the time.
Just further evidence that it is only memorized syllables, that it is recited, and not truly felt. The way it’s recited doesn’t even make sense.
But it isn’t even about that, at the other pauses, there are commas which warrents a pause, but not at one nation undergod, there is no comma. So ya its the only mistake in the pledge.
It was to just connect the nation and god parts of the pledge. So instead of putting god after the nation, with the same ranking as indivisible, it’s equal to the nation. they used to teach us how to say it right in boy scouts (although I didn’t say that part hehehehe bitches)
under god in the pledge and in god we trust on money doesn’t that violate the bibles law on blasphemy.
Dangerman,
(although I didn’t say that part hehehehe bitches)
….(laughs loudly) that was wonderful! Almost as funny as when I heard a little kid call another one a bitch after he made fun of my beard!
What legal document says that you can’t talk about religion or God because it violates church and state??
This is what Thomas Jefferson said, when he talked about the “Separation between church and state” that SO MANY people misconstrue-What he MEANT was that the government has no power to create a religion or regulate its activities in the country…
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808). “
sassenach,
maybe it’s late or maybe I’m just not that smart, but can you clarify where you’re falling on this issue. To me it seems that you’re making the argument that the government shall not create a religion, but should also not interfere with the freedom to worship. I’m getting the sense from your comment that having the freedom to worship includes the liberty to acknowledge god in the pledge or even on our currency. Am I correct?
A couple of questions come up then. By acknowledging god in our pledge, do we not interfere in the freedom of atheists to not be proselytized to in form of national pledge or have on their currency an acknowledgment of god? Are you making the argument that it’s freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion? By extension, should there be freedom of religion to display the 10 commandments in public places and school prayer? Going further, is it only Christian prayer, Abrahamic religions or all religions? Do we make room for the Wicca? Scientologists?
Sorry, just a lot of baggage comes with sep of church and state issues and I like to figure out where people are coming from.
for those of you interested and those of you who remember the discusion of hunger in America, here is an article about a report released by the USDA
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/16/americans-lack-food-but-usda-wont-call-them-hungry/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F11%2F15%2FAR2006111501621.html&frame=true
This latecomer asks sheepishly… Ellen WHO represented atheism on O’Reilly’s show?
From phreedm: “…he pointed out that atheists views towards those that are believers is a form of bigotry. She was stunned and had no response.”
Stepping onto my soapbox regarding that word… “bigotry” implies blind devotion to a creed or party. Regardless of Ellen’s “stunned” silence, O’Reilly misuses the term by applying it to a group of people whose *reasoned* opposition is to religion’s reliance on *blind* faith.
From DVanWechel: “I’ve been under the impression that a citizen in the U.K. cannot directly own property because England is still technically a monarchy, the queen owns all of the land and only ?rents? property to her citizens.”
Americans “rent” their property too — try not paying your taxes on it and see what the landlord does. (Churches, of course, get their property “rent”-free.)
O’Reilly’s show is bullshit! He is pathetic and a disgrace upon all mankind.
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,[...]“
But by putting undergod in the pledge and in god we trust on the money, it is making an oppinion for the entire country that we all believe in god, when that is not the case. How am I suppose to “trust in god” when I don’t even believe in god. Maybe if the dollar said in god some of us trust? Just replace the words on the dollar to in god we don’t believe, and in the pledge under no god, how would people feel about that? I am agaist that, because it gives the oppinion that we all believe in that, and that is not the case.