Or is it really a political group?

Tancredo Asks ACLU to Defend Politically-Targeted Student
Tancredo Press Release
10/14/2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to defend an embattled Illinois student who was targeted by his school’s administration for refusing to stand during a recitation of the Mexican National Anthem.

Robert Bedard’s son, a student at Larkin High School in Elgin, Chicago, refused to stand when the Mexican National Anthem was played at a cultural awareness program. Bedard, speaking for his son because he is a minor, complained that his son was being coerced into showing support for a foreign government, arguing, “I would be happy if they will not try to force students to honor patriotic elements of another culture unless they also honor our flag, our anthem as well.”

Tancredo wrote the ACLU’s President asking that she defend Bedard. The Congressman questioned why the so-called nonpartisan organization had not come to Bedard’s aid when it had recently argued that students not be forced to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance, and when the Mexican National Anthem invokes religious belief such as: “Oh fatherland/ Your forehead shall be girded with olive garlands,/ by the divine archangel of peace/ For in heaven your eternal destiny/ has been written by the hand of God.”

Tancredo’s letter is printed below:
Ms. Nadine Strossen

President

American Civil Liberties Union

125 Broad Street

18th Floor New York, NY 10004

Dear Ms. Strossen,

As you may know, a student in an Illinois public school was recently disciplined by school authorities for choosing to stay seated during the playing of the Mexican National Anthem. According to press reports, the student was concerned that paying homage to a foreign government by standing may have jeopardized his upcoming enlistment in the military.

The case has received some attention in the media, and I was wondering if your organization plans to take any action on behalf of this student, or any of the other students who may have felt coerced by the “officially sponsored” nature of the activity.

As recently as 2003, the Colorado chapter of the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of school sponsored recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. The ACLU’s state legal director at that time told the media, “Public expressions of belief in the ideals of liberty and justice should be voluntary, not coerced.” If the ACLU feels that asking students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes “coercion”, I would imagine you would be equally concerned when students are compelled to pay homage to a foreign nation.

Additionally, one verse of the Mexican Anthem starts with the following words:

For in heaven your eternal destiny, has been written by the hand of God.

The ACLU is well known for its ongoing effort to banish religious references from every corner of the American public square, and these lyrics are at least as religious as the Pledge. After reading the words, I was doubly surprised that your group has not already sprung into action to characterize the event as an unconstitutional “establishment of religion.”

I look forward to hearing from you on the ACLU’s plans as they apply to this case.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,
Thomas G. Tancredo
Member of Congress

Link: http://tancredo.house.gov/press/pressers/1014TancredoAsksACLUToDefendPolitically-TargetedStudent.htm

No matter how much the ACLU  might despise Rep. Tancredo (God knows I do!), they are obliged to defend the kid's right NOT to stand for the Mexican national anthem.  The ACLU would defend a public school student's right NOT to stand for the American national anthem, and they know it. 
The ACLU's position in matters concerning school is not "just shut up and do what you're told, kid!"  They've made it clear students should be able to act as their political conscience directs them.
So, if the ACLU declines to defend the kid, they're hypocrites, and that's that.

"According to press reports, the student was concerned that paying homage to a foreign government by standing may have jeopardized his upcoming enlistment in the military"

That is a frightening statement. Is it truly us against the world?

The ACLU defended the right not to say the pledge, not to not stand up. Insisting on sitting during the playing of the mexican anthem seems to convy not only a lack of partisan support for mexico, but a conscious act of disrespect.

What was the punishment anyway? If he got expelled for this, even if he did it for objectionable reasons, the ACLU should defend him. But if it was very minor, then I don't see why the ACLU should be involved. Especially with the in loco parentis authority that schools have.

No matter how much the ACLU  might despise Rep. Tancredo (God knows I do!), they are obliged to defend the kid's right NOT to stand for the Mexican national anthem.  The ACLU would defend a public school student's right NOT to stand for the American national anthem, and they know it. 
The ACLU's position in matters concerning school is not "just shut up and do what you're told, kid!"  They've made it clear students should be able to act as their political conscience directs them.
So, if the ACLU declines to defend the kid, they're hypocrites, and that's that.


I agree!

Maybe I was taught wrong, but I was always taught to stand during ANY nation's anthem ???

Would you stand up for "All Hail Our Beloved Saddam"?
:D
Actually, I don't know what the Iraqi national anthem is or was, but Saddam's election campaign theme song was "I Will Always Love You."
I mean, it was an election where Saddam was the only guy on the ticket and you had to vote for him, but he will always love you...just don't p*ss him off!

"According to press reports, the student was concerned that paying homage to a foreign government by standing may have jeopardized his upcoming enlistment in the military"

That is a frightening statement. Is it truly us against the world?

The ACLU defended the right not to say the pledge, not to not stand up. Insisting on sitting during the playing of the mexican anthem seems to convy not only a lack of partisan support for mexico, but a conscious act of disrespect.

What was the punishment anyway? If he got expelled for this, even if he did it for objectionable reasons, the ACLU should defend him. But if it was very minor, then I don't see why the ACLU should be involved. Especially with the in loco parentis authority that schools have.



I see what you're saying, though I think the ACLU needs to stick up for him, even if he is petty and disrespectful because the ACLU has been adamant about defending other petty, disrespectful parties in the past.  I don't agree with what the kid did.  The school wasn't asking him to sing the anthem or pledge allegiance to the Republic of Mexico.  On the other hand, I think you can teach cultural awareness without asking people to stand up for various national anthems!  The whole thing is a bit silly if you ask me.
And speaking of Mexico, I'll bet the kid's parents are pretty LOCO themselves!
:D

No matter how much the ACLU  might despise Rep. Tancredo (God knows I do!), they are obliged to defend the kid's right NOT to stand for the Mexican national anthem.  The ACLU would defend a public school student's right NOT to stand for the American national anthem, and they know it. 
The ACLU's position in matters concerning school is not "just shut up and do what you're told, kid!"  They've made it clear students should be able to act as their political conscience directs them.
So, if the ACLU declines to defend the kid, they're hypocrites, and that's that.


Let's not pretend that the entire legitimacy of the ACLU rests on their choosing to take this case or not. The ACLU is bombardeed with many thousands of requests to take cases every single year, and they can't possibly take all of them. This particular case, to me, seems silly. The school authorities were clearly in the wrong, but I think that in defending the right of a student to not participate in saying a pledge to the American flag or in singing the American anthem, there is also the implied defence of the right for a student to decline participation in anything of that nature, which would include singing the national Mexican anthem.

This letter is absolutely filled with subtley spiteful suggestions, and it is clearly not meant as a serious petition for aid in this case, but rather as a defiant, antagonistic questioning of the ACLU's integrity. This congressman is using this kid's case to promote a political agenda which is hinted with nationalistic and, one could argue, even racist tendencies. Does anyone honestly believe this kid was worried about being denied entrance into the military for singing a song? If so, well, let's just say I wouldn't feel comfortable handing somebody that stupid a firearm. I honestly believe it was the kid's intent to show disrespect to the Mexican culture and nation (and there were no doubt many Mexican students attending this celebration), but to masque it with guises such as nationalism and fear of being kept out of the military. I think that the ACLU has already done plenty to protect the right to not stand during pledges and anthems, and that to take this case would be giving into the antagonism on the right lead by this d!ckweed congressman. If this congressman cares so much about this case, why doesn't HE arange for a good attorney to defend this kid in court? Tell me that!

Simple, because his only real intention is to be belligerent with the ACLU.

Let's not pretend that the entire legitimacy of the ACLU rests on their choosing to take this case or not. The ACLU is bombardeed with many thousands of requests to take cases every single year, and they can't possibly take all of them. This particular case, to me, seems silly. The school authorities were clearly in the wrong, but I think that in defending the right of a student to not participate in saying a pledge to the American flag or in singing the American anthem, there is also the implied defence of the right for a student to decline participation in anything of that nature, which would include singing the national Mexican anthem.

This letter is absolutely filled with subtley spiteful suggestions, and it is clearly not meant as a serious petition for aid in this case, but rather as a defiant, antagonistic questioning of the ACLU's integrity. This congressman is using this kid's case to promote a political agenda which is hinted with nationalistic and, one could argue, even racist tendencies. Does anyone honestly believe this kid was worried about being denied entrance into the military for singing a song? If so, well, let's just say I wouldn't feel comfortable handing somebody that stupid a firearm. I honestly believe it was the kid's intent to show disrespect to the Mexican culture and nation (and there were no doubt many Mexican students attending this celebration), but to masque it with guises such as nationalism and fear of being kept out of the military. I think that the ACLU has already done plenty to protect the right to not stand during pledges and anthems, and that to take this case would be giving into the antagonism on the right lead by this d!ckweed congressman. If this congressman cares so much about this case, why doesn't HE arange for a good attorney to defend this kid in court? Tell me that!

Simple, because his only real intention is to be belligerent with the ACLU.


No, I disagree.  Clearly this is a good-faith attempt to solicit the resources and support of the ACLU, in which he believes strongly.  ::)

I would also like to know how the kid was punished (harmed).  The ACLU (of which I am a card carrying member) has already established a good deal in terms of students' rights along these lines so if the kid wasn't harmed (or even if he was) they might not want too pursue the case again.  The precidents have been set, which is where the ACLU places its  time, effort, and $$$.  That being the case, they could decide that it is up the parents to sue the school in order to make their son whole (that is, reverse any harm he may have endured.  After all, they are not a pro bono legal service, and simply can't take every case that comes along.  Especially if they have already fought similar ones.

My guess is that Tancerdo is grandstanding ... again.

No, I disagree.  Clearly this is a good-faith attempt to solicit the resources and support of the ACLU, in which he believes strongly.  ::)


The rolly eyes suggest sarcasm.  nice one.

My question is:  IS there a pending case against the school?  (like DC) How was this kid punished?  How has it "harmed" him?  You can't sue a school just because you think they treated your child unfairly if no "harm" was really done.....


That's just the point.  The school committed no crime, so this would be a civil suit, the goal of which would be to "make him whole" by repairing the damage done to him.  Thats what tort law is all about, but not what the ACLU is about.  It has already established rights like this.

In this case my guess is that an appology is in order to the kid, even though he may by a rats backside, but unless he was harmed in some way, or denied other rights...

No, I disagree.  Clearly this is a good-faith attempt to solicit the resources and support of the ACLU, in which he believes strongly.  ::)


;D

“Oh fatherland/ Your forehead shall be girded with olive garlands,/ by the divine archangel of peace/ For in heaven your eternal destiny/ has been written by the hand of God.”
I don't know if I'd stand for *that* - is that how the Mexican national anthem really goes?

....is that how the Mexican national anthem really goes?


Mexican National Anthem

Mexicans, at the cry of battle
prepare your swords and bridle;
and let the earth tremble at its center
at the roar of the cannon.

Oh fatherland
Your forehead shall be girded with olive garlands,
by the divine archangel of peace
For in heaven your eternal destiny
has been written by the hand of God.

But should a foreign enemy dale to
profane your land with his sole,
Think, beloved fatherland, that heaven
gave you a soldier in each son.

War, war without truce against who would attempt
to blemish the honor of the fatherland!
War, war! The patriotic banners
drench in waves
of blood.

War, war! On the mount, in the valley
The terrifying thunder of the cannon

And the echoes nobly
resound to the cries of
Union!
Liberty!

Fatherland, before your children

Become unarmed
Beneath the yoke their necks in sway,
And your countryside be watered with blood,
On blood their
feet trample.

And may your temples, palaces and towers
crumble in horrid
crash,
and ruins remain
saying:
The fatherland was made of one thousand heroes.

Fatherland, fatherland, your children swear
to exhale their breath in your cause,
If the bugle in its belligerent tone
should call upon them to struggle with bravery.

For you the olive garlands!

For them a memory of glory!

For you a laurel of victory!

For them a tomb of honor!

Let's not pretend that the entire legitimacy of the ACLU rests on their choosing to take this case or not. The ACLU is bombardeed with many thousands of requests to take cases every single year, and they can't possibly take all of them. This particular case, to me, seems silly. The school authorities were clearly in the wrong, but I think that in defending the right of a student to not participate in saying a pledge to the American flag or in singing the American anthem, there is also the implied defence of the right for a student to decline participation in anything of that nature, which would include singing the national Mexican anthem.

This letter is absolutely filled with subtley spiteful suggestions, and it is clearly not meant as a serious petition for aid in this case, but rather as a defiant, antagonistic questioning of the ACLU's integrity. This congressman is using this kid's case to promote a political agenda which is hinted with nationalistic and, one could argue, even racist tendencies. Does anyone honestly believe this kid was worried about being denied entrance into the military for singing a song? If so, well, let's just say I wouldn't feel comfortable handing somebody that stupid a firearm. I honestly believe it was the kid's intent to show disrespect to the Mexican culture and nation (and there were no doubt many Mexican students attending this celebration), but to masque it with guises such as nationalism and fear of being kept out of the military. I think that the ACLU has already done plenty to protect the right to not stand during pledges and anthems, and that to take this case would be giving into the antagonism on the right lead by this d!ckweed congressman. If this congressman cares so much about this case, why doesn't HE arange for a good attorney to defend this kid in court? Tell me that!

Simple, because his only real intention is to be belligerent with the ACLU.

McD, you are awesome!
:)
Your bullseye rhetoric is both searing and trenchant.  You ought to start your own blog for your withering attacks on right-wing idiocy! 

You make a great point.  I didn't see the case so clearly until you described just how lame this kid's drummed up case is.  Tancredo is obviously trying to badger the ACLU because he hates the organization.  I don't know the laws governing whether congressmen can pay legal fees for private citizens.  Don't forget, Tancredo is a representative in Colorado, and the kid is Illinois.  Why didn't the kid and his dad contact their own congressman?  What's the story there? 
In any case, you'd figure if Tancredo was really concerned with this young patriot's civil rights, he would present the case to a right-wing legal advocacy outfit, such as Pat Robertson's ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). 
Tancredo is banking on the ACLU passing on the kid's complaint Tancredo, the kid, and the kid's dad could all go on FOX News and say, "See, the ACLU only wants to defend pedophiles and traitors!  They won't lift a finger to help out a good clean American boy!"
That's actually party of why I thought the ACLU should take the case. 
"OK, kid, whatd'ya got?  Looks like you got nothin,' but let's give it the old college try!" 
My guess is the kid and his dad would drop the case before it ever went to court.

"I hope you know this will go down on your permanent record!"
--Violent Femmes

I mean, look, if the Marine recruiters get ahold of your refusal to sing the Mexican national anthem, they'll tell you where to go!  You're not fit be a hired killer. 
:D

this d!ckweed congressman. If this congressman cares so much about this case, why doesn't HE arange for a good attorney to defend this kid in court? Tell me that!


Can you go one post without calling someone you disagree with a name?  And maybe Mr. Tancredo doesn't want to pay out of his own pocket.  Who would?  Isn't this exactly why people send donations to the ACLU?

Can you go one post without calling someone you disagree with a name?  And maybe Mr. Tancredo doesn't want to pay out of his own pocket.  Who would?  Isn't this exactly why people send donations to the ACLU?

That's why I asked if congressional representatives are allowed to pay legal bills for private citizens.  I also asked why Tancredo would petition an organization that stands in diametrical opposition to his so-called Christian conservative values.  Wouldn't Tancredo rather petition an organization in accordance with his own views, such as the American Center for Law and Justice?

BTW, a lot of people with the means donate money for legal counsel if they believe in a case to be litigated.  Come on now.

BTW, a lot of people with the means donate money for legal counsel if they believe in a case to be litigated.  Come on now.


Tancredo might not be rich.  Who knows?  There are probably a few representatives and senators whose only income comes from their job in the house/senate.

And I believe the ACLJ only deals with legal cases involving religion.

Tancredo might not be rich.  Who knows?  There are probably a few representatives and senators whose only income comes from their job in the house/senate.

And I believe the ACLJ only deals with legal cases involving religion.

Oh, you might be right there.  I've only seen that guy Jay Sekulow (sp?) from the ACLJ on TV when the case is about the Christian right's agenda.

Anyway, there must be conservative advocacy groups that would take the case.  Maybe the Heritage Foundation or the John Birch Society could help, or at least steer the case in the right direction.
::)

Mexican National Anthem

Please tell me it sounds better in Spanish...

"According to press reports, the student was concerned that paying homage to a foreign government by standing may have jeopardized his upcoming enlistment in the military"


That is just plain nonsense!

Trust me, as a former Marine who was stationed overseas, that would never be a problem.  In fact, when I was in Japan and Panama, the National Anthems of each nation were played during the morning "Colors" ceremony, and we had to stand at attention and salute during them.  It is simply a matter of respect.

And as members of the armed forces, we stand at attention during the "Official Song" of each branch of the service (and of any foreign service if we recognize it).  It is simply respectfull to do so.  And I have not heard of a Foreign servicemember who does not return the same courtesy.

Besides, being a US Citizen is not even a requirement to being in the military.  I knew many people that were citizens of other nations (including Canada, England, South Korea, Philippines, Panama, Iran, Iraq, and even East Germany) who served in the US Active Duty.  In fact, Hussein Adid (son of Somali Warlord Mohamad Adid) was serving in Somalia while he was a US Marine!  After his father was killed, he stepped in and is now the leader of his clan (and one of many "Somali Presidents").

I think this is being blown out of proportion for political reasons.  But the father does have a valid point.  And if the ACLU does not at least give their support, then their claim of being "non-partaisan" will take a bit of a beating.  But I have also seen them support the KKK, so I find it hard to consider them as anything but fair (in most areas).

Can you go one post without calling someone you disagree with a name?  And maybe Mr. Tancredo doesn't want to pay out of his own pocket.  Who would?  Isn't this exactly why people send donations to the ACLU?


Actually, I think you'll find that most of my posts don't include name-calling. I mean, there are the odd few, but why should I be afraid to let my opinion of this guy be known?. Who cares if I'm candid and frank with my opinion about a congressman, a public figure who has no presence on this board whatsoever?

Why even point this out? Everyone here knows you don't really care that I called him a name; you're not even offended by it. You're just trying to embarrass me and get me to eat my words, and I'm not going to do that because when I said the guy was a d!ckweed, I meant it. Way back when, when I let slip that I thought you were passively racist, I meant that too. I wager you still have a chip on your shoulder about that one.

Besides, if there were ever an appropriate venue for candidness, it would be a net forum like this one. It's not like I dropped the F-bomb on the House floor during session or anything... ;)

I love Father Ted. I know that makes you angry.

Only just read this, McD - it made me literally LOL.. and I love Father Ted, too :D

I don't know if I'd stand for *that* - is that how the Mexican national anthem really goes?


But that's not the issue.  There have been times (during Vietnam, after 9/11/73) when I stood for our national anthem - with my back turned in utter disrespect for the actions of my government, which I believed (and believe) was betraying both our national interests and our supposed values.  Whatever you think of Mexico's national anthem (and I can't answer your question), or what I think of it isn't the point.  The point is, should the ACLU be branded hypocritical if it declines coming to the defence of this kid, after winning similar cases defending students' rights?

Can you go one post without calling someone you disagree with a name?  And maybe Mr. Tancredo doesn't want to pay out of his own pocket.  Who would?  Isn't this exactly why people send donations to the ACLU?


As I said, I am a card carrying member, and no, I don't make a monthly pledge so that they can defend every dip-sh1t kid with a bug up is ars from stupid school administrators who don't know the law.  I support the ACLU because it works to establish precidents regarding civil rights.  Once the precident has been established, it is up to those wronged to defend the rights established.  I would not support the ACLU if all it did was provide pro bono services to every tom, dick, and harry who claimed their rights were abused on petty issues like this.  Again I ask, how was this kid harmed?

But that's not the issue. 

I know, but you have to admit that lyrically it is dire, with a capital D.

Only just read this, McD - it made me literally LOL.. and I love Father Ted, too :D


It must be one of the best, if not the best show ever produced. It comes on here every Sunday on PBS(well, actually Monday) at 1a.m., but also on BBC America on Saturdays. It's so unbelievably funny. I've had that sig line for a while, and I was wondering if anyone would ever catch it.

That line is from the episode "The Passion of St. Tibulus" if you remember it, and it was a hilarious one. Too bad the show only lasted for three series. And the odd thing was that Frank Kelly died in a car wreck just after having shot what was meant to be the final episode.

Please tell me it sounds better in Spanish...


I certainly hope so.

I have to ask.....who in heck is Father Ted ???


Father Ted was a popular Britcom about the antics of a motley crew of Irish priests who had all been placed in the Craggy Island parish, the worst parish in all of Ireland, becuase each of them had a particular problem. The leader, Father Ted Crilly, embesled money intended for a children's charity (though he claimed the money was "just resting" in his account). Ted's sidekick was Father Dougal McGuire, who was just a complete imbecile who was unable to think. Then their common responsibility was the elderly Father Jack Hackett, who was a violent, foul-mouthed drunkard, and all he ever did was yell out the words "feck," "arse," and "girls." You take those three and add their doting, sandwich and tea-making, obsessive housekeeper Mrs. Doyle, plus a fine selection of crazy locals and one mean bishop, and you got yourself the best Britcom ever made. If you ever have the time, turn on BBC America on Saturday at (I believe) 1 or 1:30 p.m. CENTRAL time. It's a laugh riot.

Father Ted was a popular Britcom about the antics of a motley crew of Irish priests who had all been placed in the Craggy Island parish, the worst parish in all of Ireland, becuase each of them had a particular problem. The leader, Father Ted Crilly, embesled money intended for a children's charity (though he claimed the money was "just resting" in his account). Ted's sidekick was Father Dougal McGuire, who was just a complete imbecile who was unable to think. Then their common responsibility was the elderly Father Jack Hackett, who was a violent, foul-mouthed drunkard, and all he ever did was yell out the words "feck," "arse," and "girls." You take those three and add their doting, sandwich and tea-making, obsessive housekeeper Mrs. Doyle, plus a fine selection of crazy locals and one mean bishop, and you got yourself the best Britcom ever made.


Is this another one of those shows that make Christians look bad?

I'm sure a Britcom couldn't do nearly as good a job making Christians look bad as some Christians do. 

Heh, never noticed your tagline before, McD.

Is this another one of those shows that make Christians look bad?


Are you for real?

Are you for real?


Of course I'm serious.

I wouldn't mind watching the show, but I don't get BBC America.

Let's not pretend that the entire legitimacy of the ACLU rests on their choosing to take this case or not. The ACLU is bombardeed with many thousands of requests to take cases every single year, and they can't possibly take all of them. ...

If this congressman cares so much about this case, why doesn't HE arange for a good attorney to defend this kid in court? Tell me that!

Simple, because his only real intention is to be belligerent with the ACLU.


i agree, somethign about this feels hinky, like a publicity stunt. the ACLU has defended nambla and the neo-nazi party so i hardly think they'd refuse this case on political grounds or because it makes them look bad. But they probably know quite well some right-wing legal advocacy group will take this case because it's just the sort of thing they can use to twist around into an argument to make kids stand up for the american anthem so why does the ACLU need to bother with it? the lawyers who helped impeach bill clinton will probably take this case pro bono.

i dunno, a lot of times i chafed at standing for the national anthem when i was a kid. not because i don't love my country but i hate that compulsory groupthink stuff. gives me the creeps. it's funny so many of the people who want to make standing for the anthem compulsory are the same folks who are always saying get government out of our lives.

i dunno, a lot of times i chafed at standing for the national anthem when i was a kid. not because i don't love my country but i hate that compulsory groupthink stuff. gives me the creeps. it's funny so many of the people who want to make standing for the anthem compulsory are the same folks who are always saying get government out of our lives.



Agreed.  Especially when the kids reciting it can't possibly be expected to understand what it is they're actually saying.  "And Tudor Republics of Witches Cans..." 

I've encountered few people who actually do want "government of our our lives".  In reality, "get government out of our lives!" often translates to "get government out of MY life, so it can regulate the people and areas that suit me".

Agreed.  Especially when the kids reciting it can't possibly be expected to understand what it is they're actually saying.  "And Tudor Republics of Witches Cans..." 

see, though, something like this i'll TOTALLY pledge allegiance to. lol.

see, though, something like this i'll TOTALLY pledge allegiance to. lol.


To witches cans?

My government teacher in High School actually wrote the Florida law which says that every student must not only stand for, but say the pledge unless they have a note from their parents. It made my blood boil to know this woman, for whom I had so much respect in every other instance, should want to force kids to do something like that. I take serious issue with the pledge, and not only for the "under God" clause either. Why should little children be pledging allegiance to anything?

My government teacher in High School actually wrote the Florida law which says that every student must not only stand for, but say the pledge unless they have a note from their parents. It made my blood boil to know this woman, for whom I had so much respect in every other instance, should want to force kids to do something like that. I take serious issue with the pledge, and not only for the "under God" clause either. Why should little children be pledging allegiance to anything?

If I was forced, I wouldn't annunciate the consonants in "under God," and nobody would be the wiser for it.
:D

And to the Republic for Richard stands

Wait Max, I know Richard Stands, a drunken, wife beating lout.  ;)

Aldous Huxley got it right.

Wait Max, I know Richard Stands, a drunken, wife beating lout.  ;)

Aldous Huxley got it right.

;D

Wait Max, I know Richard Stands, a drunken, wife beating lout.  ;)

Aldous Huxley got it right.


And how about Joooose can you seeeee by the rocker's dead right...? ? ? ?

And how about Joooose can you seeeee by the rocker's dead right...? ? ? ?

I once heard an anti-immgrant bigot say, "It's supposed to be 'Oh, say can you see,' NOT, "Jose can you see'!"
Pretty assanine!

Now I see why the ACLU is not taking the case.  They're in the middle of more important things:

ACLU targets tiny cross on seal
10/25/2005

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/tijeras.gif
Seal of Tijeras, NM

Proving it does not discriminate against the size of the municipality it will take to court, the American Civil Liberties Union is locked in a legal battle with a small New Mexico town over a tiny cross on its seal – this after last year forcing the County of Los Angeles to remove a cross from its seal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/lacountyseal.gif
Old Los Angeles County seal

After being threatened with a lawsuit should it continue to use the seal, the city of Tijeras, N.M., – with a population of less than 500 – decided to place itself in a David and Goliath conflict with the ACLU to defend the presence of the cross.

In 1973, Tijeras adopted the seal, which was designed to symbolize the history of the town. It includes a conquistador's helmet and sword, a scroll, a desert plant, a fairly large religious symbol (the Native American zia) and a small Christian cross.

"Tiny cross inspectors are not permitted to fret about large non-Christian religious symbols, only undersized Christian ones," commented columnist John Leo about the case.

Since it is such a small town, Tijeras did not have the financial resources to battle the ACLU, so the Alliance Defense Fund a pro-religious-liberty organization, has agreed to represent the municipality.

"The ACLU is once more specifically targeting a cross while it ignores Native American religious symbols," commented ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb. "It reveals their desire to target all things Christian, regardless of the fact that the cross in the Tijeras seal is clearly an historic symbol and not an attempt to endorse any particular faith."

Wrote Silas Montgomery, tongue in cheek, in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, referencing the placement of the cross on the seal: "This heinous crime, committed more than 30 years ago, went unpunished until the righteous crusaders from the ACLU took note of it and decided that justice had to be served."

As WorldNetDaily reported, last year the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, threatened to sue the county if the L.A. County Board of Supervisors did not redesign the seal, leading to a 3-2 vote to remove the small cross. The ACLU claimed it violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Board subsequently voted to approve a new cross-less seal.

Link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47022

the new mexico thing is a little silly but as an avowed agnostic i can tell you that california seal sorta freaks me out. it doesn't just look a little religious, it looks totally blissed out! with the backlit head and the array of crosses and everything... it's funny we're not getting the lesson from the taliban -- you really don't wanna mix your religion and your politics.

The ACLU always does this, sues small towns they know don't have the money to fight them and strongarm them to do what they want.  It makes me glad to have anti-ACLU legal groups like the ACLJ and the Alliance Defense Fund.  And especially now that it's about that time of the year for the ACLU to start suing small towns that display Christian scenes or small school systems that say "Christmas break" instead of "winter break."

The never sue anyone big, they know they'll lose if anyone can match their funds.  That's why they haven't sued the state of Maryland for having a cross on their state flag and requiring flagpoles that fly the Maryland state flag to have a cross at the top of the flagpole.  Maryland has the money and the ACLU knows that any court outside of San Francisco would laugh them out.  They sue and hope the small town or county doesn't have the money and surrenders to their demands before they go before any court.

well, the real scandal here, it sounds like, isn't so much the conduct of the ACLU as it is the fact of a judicial system where it comes down to who can match whose funds.

Badge of honor or mark of shame?

Do the depictions on the seals indicate advocacy or history?  I always thought of them as historical symbols.  The current political entities in California and New Mexico have a Christian history...for better and for worse.  When I see that cross, I am reminded of the atrocities and bloodshed brought on by the conquistadors.  May it haunt the American southwest forever. 
See, you don't have to like what it stands for to approve it being there.
8)

Badge of honor or mark of shame?

Do the depictions on the seals indicate advocacy or history?  I always thought of them as historical symbols.  The current political entities in California and New Mexico have a Christian history...for better and for worse.  When I see that cross, I am reminded of the atrocities and bloodshed brought on by the conquistadors.  May it haunt the American southwest forever. 
See, you don't have to like what it stands for to approve it being there.
8)


hmm. fair point.

I once heard an anti-immgrant bigot say, "It's supposed to be 'Oh, say can you see,' NOT, "Jose can you see'!"
Pretty assanine!


Ow shucks.  My cousin Jose will be very upset.  He always thought all those folks at the ball park were concerned about his vantage point.

He always thought all those folks at the ball park were concerned about his vantage point.

Damn, he must be getting to the game early... or does baseball kick off at dawn over there?