by Tdarcos » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:54 am
On one of Fox News shows - Fox and Friends - they "reported" that a Federal Appeals Court in Texas upheld as constitutional the state's mandate that the term "under God" be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, after a father decided to sue over the state's decision to make the Texas version of the Pledge match the Federal version.
The Pledge didn't have "under God" in it until later in the 1950s when Congress voted to add the term.
The commentators criticized this "waste of money" over this lawsuit. Would they have found this so "wasteful" if it was over the forced recital of an opinion they disagreed with or opposed? If the pledge had been written, "One Nation Insha Allah" or "One Nation under Wotan and Thor" would these people be so supportive of the forced recitation of this version of the Pledge? Or by their own kids? Or the version I propose in the title of this posting?
They mocked the point that the child was allowed to leave the room during the Pledge and wasn't required to stay. As has been pointed out in some cases, when a child has to leave the room it can end up causing them to be treated badly by other students because they see them as "wierd" or "unnatural".
I disagree with the court decision basically because I disagree with the idea of forcing a religious opinion upon people; this includes either the support or rejection of any religious viewpoint, especially by a government agency. It's an entirely different matter in the case of, say, a private organization. But for all intents and purposes the Pledge is a required part of the curriculum of a government operated school that the student is required to attend.
But what bothered me most is that, whether they approve or disapproved of this particular decision, the entire argument was basically scorn and derision over someone's disagreement with the way a government school was basically forcing a religious opinion into the curriculum, and they made no effort at all to even give token coverage to the opposing opinion as to why this particular decision might not necessarily be a good idea.
I don't disagree with them supporting the decision; they're a far-right news organization and I would expect this. What I disagree with is that they made no effort at all to even give any consideration to the other side of the issue.
So much for Faux News claims of "fair and balanced."
On one of Fox News shows - Fox and Friends - they "reported" that a Federal Appeals Court in Texas upheld as constitutional the state's mandate that the term "under God" be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, after a father decided to sue over the state's decision to make the Texas version of the Pledge match the Federal version.
The Pledge didn't have "under God" in it until later in the 1950s when Congress voted to add the term.
The commentators criticized this "waste of money" over this lawsuit. Would they have found this so "wasteful" if it was over the forced recital of an opinion they disagreed with or opposed? If the pledge had been written, "One Nation Insha Allah" or "One Nation under Wotan and Thor" would these people be so supportive of the forced recitation of this version of the Pledge? Or by their own kids? Or the version I propose in the title of this posting?
They mocked the point that the child was allowed to leave the room during the Pledge and wasn't required to stay. As has been pointed out in some cases, when a child has to leave the room it can end up causing them to be treated badly by other students because they see them as "wierd" or "unnatural".
I disagree with the court decision basically because I disagree with the idea of forcing a religious opinion upon people; this includes either the support or rejection of any religious viewpoint, especially by a government agency. It's an entirely different matter in the case of, say, a private organization. But for all intents and purposes the Pledge is a required part of the curriculum of a government operated school that the student is required to attend.
But what bothered me most is that, whether they approve or disapproved of this particular decision, the entire argument was basically scorn and derision over someone's disagreement with the way a government school was basically forcing a religious opinion into the curriculum, and they made no effort at all to even give token coverage to the opposing opinion as to why this particular decision might not necessarily be a good idea.
I don't disagree with them supporting the decision; they're a far-right news organization and I would expect this. What I disagree with is that they made no effort at all to even give any consideration to the other side of the issue.
So much for Faux News claims of "fair and balanced."