Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[spoop]

As I said I do not believe that. Why do you insist that I do? I believe they would not be out of line to say something to the person about being disrespectful. (I personally probably would not. You usually don't get very far with jerks/disrespectful people.) But shouting would be disrespectful. I am against being disrespectful, unlike you who seems to believe it's ok sometimes.

Again, why do you insist on someone who is being disrespectful, be given respect? And that it is ok for this person to be disrespectful but not another?)

You're operating on two very different definitions of disrespect. To delve any deeper into debate with questions like "Again, why do you insist on someone who is being disrespectful, be given respect?" is completely fruitless if you haven't established a common meaning of disrespect, and from what I can tell your definitions of disrespect are too far apart for that to happen.

 

[meyers7]

You're operating on two very different definitions of disrespect. To delve any deeper into debate with questions like "Again, why do you insist on someone who is being disrespectful, be given respect?" is completely fruitless if you haven't established a common meaning of disrespect, and from what I can tell your definitions of disrespect are too far apart for that to happen.

I agree, we do seem to have different views on respect/disrespect. ( I think I stated that didn't I??)

 

[RoyDodger]

I was going to let this go but it's been bothering me so here goes...

I am dismayed that someone would think it's OK to harass and intimidate a person who has a different belief or who thinks differently than they do - and call it patriotism. I dislike bullies in any venue, whether it's at a basketball game or on the Boneyard, and that includes verbal bullies.

How have we gotten to the point where we respect, some to the point of revering, a flag more than other human beings and how is this in any way OK? It's not patriotism, it's abusing the flag by wrapping oneself in it in order to justify bad behavior.

Nan, absolutely wonderful response. Thank you.

 

[Kibitzer]

I have never been more proud to be a Boneyarder as I watched this thread develop and watched people with widely divergent views express themselves candidly but always respectfully and courteously (even when it hurt a bit) to those who most certainly held an opposing perspective.

Please, if we disagree, let's continue to avoid being disagreeable.

 

[UConnCat]

As we expected, the media was all over the pledge issue tonight. John A's latest reports that indeed reciting the pledge before UConn sporting events is the brainchild of AD Pendergast. Geno weighed in with his typical humor but a surprising lack of historical knowledge on the pledge. Geno, a history buff, clearly has some reading to do on the subject. No Geno, Thomas Jefferson did not write the pledge of allegiance; nor did any of the other founding fathers.

Bria Hartley thinks it's okay; she knows the words. Thanks John.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn...ce-before-every-game-20111130,0,5830556.story

 

[UConn990411]

It wasn't meant to be a serious comment - you'll see that when his postgame presser is put online.

 

[DaddyChoc]

As we expected, the media was all over the pledge issue tonight.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn...ce-before-every-game-20111130,0,5830556.story

not surprised

posters should get a percentage of the pay

 

[dibster]

It started at the early games at Gampel. I think it started at Veteran's Day because they had Vets doing it. It has nothing to do with sponsorship that I know of.

 

[Icebear]

Interesting to learn the origin of its use and how Pendergast's involvement came about. My most regular use has been in a similar context at our Lion's Club meetings where we open with it and My Country Tis of Thee.

 

[meyers7]

Please, if we disagree, let's continue to avoid being disagreeable.

Ahhh, but then where's all the fun?

 

[Phil]

I have never been more proud to be a Boneyarder as I watched this thread develop and watched people with widely divergent views express themselves candidly but always respectfully and courteously (even when it hurt a bit) to those who most certainly held an opposing perspective.

Please, if we disagree, let's continue to avoid being disagreeable.

Good point. I cringed a bit when I saw the subject, thinking it would generate some strong repsonses. And it has, but it hasn't (yet) degenerated.

 

[magic]

I'm a veteran, but are they going to pass out american flags to wave during the game next? SHEESH!

 

[ruskin]

Only. In. Connecticut.

It's "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

Don't like it? Do what UConn fans of all sports are famous for, and casually arrive after tipoff.

I bet Texas A&M's players will gladly participate next week.

Last week at start of Manchester Road Race I was pleasantly surprised when crowd of runners/fans joined in with the anthem. For a second I thought I wasn't in CT anymore. Sadly, this reminds me I am.

 

[boontonbomber]

Only. In. Connecticut.

It's "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

Don't like it? Do what UConn fans of all sports are famous for, and casually arrive after tipoff.

I bet Texas A&M's players will gladly participate next week.

Last week at start of Manchester Road Race I was pleasantly surprised when crowd of runners/fans joined in with the anthem. For a second I thought I wasn't in CT anymore. Sadly, this reminds me I am.

actually not "only in connecticut", because in mass. we also appreciate freedom FROM mention of god at our athletic contests. except maybe when yelling at referees.

 

[meyers7]

actually not "only in connecticut", because in mass. we also appreciate freedom FROM mention of god at our athletic contests. except maybe when yelling at referees.

Oh the horrors, someone mentioned God. geez some people.

 

[ruskin]

Way too much energy/time expended on this issue because folks are set in their beliefs. IMO dont think pledge=prayer, nor does paying cash (In God We Trust).
One of the many divisive issues between blue/red states. It's too bad.

 

[mr006]

Way too much energy/time expended on this issue because folks are set in their beliefs. IMO dont think pledge=prayer, nor does paying cash (In God We Trust). One of the many divisive issues between blue/red states. It's too bad.

a) Do you think that both sides have spent too much time on and energy on it?
b) I don't think that "Only. In. Connecticut" is fair. After all, we ARE Connecticut. This is how we are. Shouldn't have to apologize for it. There's 49 other states (and a multitude of other nations) with other options.
c) I also am very pleasantly surprised and pleased that this thread has made it this far without having to be locked. Good job!
d) @Boonton: "We also appreciate freedom FROM mention of god at our athletic contests. except maybe when yelling at referees." Great line!

 

[spoop]

It's "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

This would matter, if there weren't such a thing as separation of church and state...
And before anyone mentions that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't actually found in the constitution, neither is "freedom of religion".

 

[Icebear]

Oh the horrors, someone mentioned God. geez some people.

It is not empty "horrors" at the mention of God for many but the casual "enslavement" or "attachment" of God to nationalistic ritual and "endorsement" of casual athletic activities or to slogans on money. President Theodore Roosevelt considered it sacrilege in that manner.

In many ways it is the use of God's name in a trivialized manner. Israel and many Jews to this day held and hold God's name as so inviolate as to never speak or write its representation. In contrast we speak as if it is such a trivial manner as not even to be worthy of notice or bother when we toss it into the midst of a public ceremony.

 

[Icebear]

This would matter, if there weren't such a thing as separation of church and state...
And before anyone mentions that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't actually found in the constitution, neither is "freedom of religion".

As you said,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention of either the terms freedom of or from religion.

It's "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion.

Sorry, but you are wrong, it is freedom from a government establishment of religion held in tension with a promise of the right of free exercise. The reasons were well debated among the founding fathers. Madison, particularly, gave light to the concerns in Federalist #10 which discusses factionalism including religion, as well as, the tension between democracy and a republic and the needs to protect all from the forces of factions and their attempts to power and force of action or compliance by use of government compulsion.

It is commonly referred to as "the establishment" clause.

 

[meyers7]

It is not empty "horrors" at the mention of God for many but the casual "enslavement" or "attachment" of God to nationalistic ritual and "endorsement" of casual athletic activities or to slogans on money. President Theodore Roosevelt considered it sacrilege in that manner.

In many ways it is the use of God's name in a trivialized manner. Israel and many Jews to this day held and hold God's name as so inviolate as to never speak or write its representation. In contrast we speak as if it is such a trivial manner as not even to be worthy of notice or bother when we toss it into the midst of a public ceremony.

Good points.

 

[meyers7]

As you said,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention of either the terms freedom of or from religion.

thereof gets pretty close. And gets the point being made.

Sorry, but you are wrong,

Nope he's (she's) right on this one.

 

[Icebear]

thereof gets pretty close. And gets the point being made.

Nope he's (she's) right on this one.

"and the freedom of exercise thereof" is indeed close as a personal right but not as a governmental right. The government should not take actions involving these things but it is reserved to you and me. The Lemon test provides the legal measure of all these things. The event of Nebraska and PSU at their game were protected but the authority of the school to organize daily prayer is not.

 

[SubbaBub]

Coming at it from another angle...anyone here recite their marriage pledge before an athletic activity?

Pledges outside the context of the legal system of any sort are silly exercises only meant to satisfy the ego of people you need to hear such things.

I would ask the person offended by someone not submitting to removing their hat this, "Why is your sensibility more important than the other persons?" I would think it falls directly under the banner of mind your own business.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[RoyDodger]

As you said,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention of either the terms freedom of or from religion.

Sorry, but you are wrong, it is freedom from a government establishment of religion held in tension with a promise of the right of free exercise. The reasons were well debated among the founding fathers. Madison, particularly, gave light to the concerns in Federalist #10 which discusses factionalism including religion, as well as, the tension between democracy and a republic and the needs to protect all from the forces of factions and their attempts to power and force of action or compliance by use of government compulsion.

It is commonly referred to as "the establishment" clause.

Since the days I was in school in NYC (I graduated from HS in 1961) and was once accused by a teacher of being disloyal to the US because I refused to say the pledge of allegiance and wouldn't sing a song that included references to "God" (this was pre-Abington School District vs. Schempp-1963), I am keenly aware of the dangers that come from the government forcing particular views about religion on the public. The use of the term "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was a rather sad result of the McCarthy era when a very weak Congress had to prove to itself that they weren't Communists.

Although I suspect the courts would find that the saying of the pledge at a UConn home basketball game was not a violation of the first amendment because no one is forced to attend, it's my opinion that public institutions (of which UConn is certainly one) have no business imposing religious or political views on anyone at any university sponsored event. As I've said before, it is accepted practice to sing and/or stand for the national anthem. I have no problem with that. But when the government starts to impose any form of religion (and references to "God" are a form of religion) on an audience that was simply attending to see a sporting event, it has gone too far because it offends those who disagree and creates an atmosphere of hostility which is reflected somewhat in the thankfully civil comments on this board.

Ruskin argued that it is freedom of religion, not freedom "from" religion. Well, Ruskin, sorry it's both. The freedom "of" religion, includes the choice of not having religion. And the right to attend a government sponsored event without religious views being forced down one's throat.