Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Sick God Hate policy in CA school

Dec 6, 2003 10:20PM PST

Well, it's not really sick hate I don't think, but figured the subject line would catch more attention Happy

Officials boot 'God' from patriotic song
Lee Greenwood's inspiring Gulf War anthem prompts questions about 'legality of lyrics'


''God Bless the U.S.A.,'' a patriotic anthem made popular by singer Lee Greenwood during the 1991 Gulf War, ignited a war of words between some parents and officials when it was learned an upcoming school performance would substitute the words ''I love'' for 'God bless.''

The show's directors decided to substitute ''I love the U.S.A.'' during rehearsals for the performance at Pacifica High School in Ventura County, California, when someone on the committee suggested the word ''God'' might be a ''problem.''

... The show's sponsor, the Pleasant Valley Education Foundation, provides support for bands, speech programs and choruses. Because it's not officially affiliated with the district, committee members decided to check with school officials to make sure the word ''God'' would not violate laws separating church and state.

... Committee chairwoman Peggy Smith said words have been changed before in the show's three-year history.

''We didn't want a lawsuit," Smith told the Star. "It could lead to the demise of Cinemagic and arts programs ... because of one word."


Luckily, sanity has prevailed, and thanks to some angry parents and a rational school board, the song will be sung as written. I wonder if the ACLU will look into finding some Christian kid who is now traumatized after finding out that God is a bad word to sue the school anyway! No, I'm not suggesting this at all, but I do think this demonstrates where there is selective outrage over certain speech in the atmosphere of political correctness. And note what prompted the word change in the first place -- fear of a lawsuit -- kinda puts in perspective some of the other issues of the day. The teacher in the LA school is assumed to be a hateful, homophobic, Bible thumper because she feels discussions about a gay parent don't belong in her classroom. The hue and cry is for lawsuits and firings based on a single incident which, IMO, is just as much an overreaction as the punishment meeted out in that case.

Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Now you have done it...
Dec 6, 2003 11:06PM PST

because God bashing is as "in" with the PC Crowd as gay bashing is out.

What this country NEEDS is a Conservative/Libertarian Supreme Court that can get the judicial activism legislation tossed and everything beck to what was intended. Current policy completely ignores the second part of the Establishment Clause--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

Allowing school prayer, public displays with religious themes, etc. in no way violates the prohibition of a state religion although disallowing them does indeed inhibit the free exercise of religion.

- Collapse -
Re: Now you have done it...
Dec 7, 2003 6:51AM PST

Hi, Ed.

>>What this country NEEDS is a Conservative/Libertarian Supreme Court that can get the judicial activism legislation tossed and everything beck to what was intended.<<
Like, for example, only white men who own property being able to vote, women not being able to own property or enter into legal contracts, and Blacks being slaves? Is THAT what you want to return to, Ed?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Now you have done it...
Dec 7, 2003 7:27AM PST

Dave,

Some may know that recently you and I failed to see "eye to eye" for a brief millisecond.

Now that the feathers have been smoothed out, I just wanted to let you know that I LOVE your response so much that I'd like to know why you are not running for the highest office in our land that once had a few level-headed citizens??? *rofl*

I hope I don't have to tell you that I'd NEVER vote for a "throw-back" or any neanderthal. Happy

Tim

- Collapse -
I could endorse some of that.
Dec 7, 2003 3:06PM PST

Why should those who don't invest in their community by property ownership be telling those who do buy property what they can or not do with it? We have entirely too many people empowered beyond any right they should be. Democracy always tends toward socialism, overtaxation, and appeasment of the masses at the expense of others. When it becomes too overbearing, the wealthier ones leave to elsewhere and things degrade even more.

- Collapse -
Is that what I said Dave?...
Dec 8, 2003 5:10AM PST

No, it certainly isn't because those little issues were long ago handled properly and in accordance with the process set up by the founders. The Constitution was Ammended, it was not simply abused and ignored by activist judges legislating from the bench.

Skimming and seeing what you want rather than what is actually there Dave?

- Collapse -
Skimming and seeing what you want rather than what is actually there Dave?
Dec 8, 2003 5:14AM PST

Nah ... just fear mongering Wink

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Where is any constitutional proscription against a "state" religion?
Dec 7, 2003 2:59PM PST

Only one against a national religion. Several states had government endorsed religions in the past, which was the reason they wanted a clause to keep the federal government from interfering in such. Basically the Federal govt, nor the Supreme Court have any right to make any rulings in regard to religion. When they do, since it is not legal, states should just ignore it.

- Collapse -
Re: Where is any constitutional proscription against a
Dec 8, 2003 11:54AM PST

Hi, James.

The Federal Bill of Rights supercedes state laws -- that's been the basis of our system of laws since the early 19th Century. A State is free to expand individual rights beyond those in the Federal Bill of Rights, but may not limit them below that level. So there cannot be a "state" religion -- thank God!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Copyright?
Dec 7, 2003 4:24AM PST

I wonder what Lee Greenwood would have done about changing his song? I'm glad the parents and school board showed some common sense.

- Collapse -
What we do to "catch more attention"...
Dec 7, 2003 7:14AM PST

"Well, it's not really sick hate I don't think, but figured the subject line would catch more attention"

It is gratifying to know that I'm not the only one who "alters" the REAL headline in order to get a response from our membership.

Does this mean I'm in good company, or will I be chastised whilst you are given the expected pass?

If you don't know of what I speak, ask and I'm sure someone can fill you in on a recent thread I started that some took me to task over and for which I've yet to recover.

- Collapse -
Re:What we do to
Dec 8, 2003 2:29AM PST

Surely even you can see the difference?

Let's see. I posted a link and excerpt about a censorship issue that was at least somewhat related to recent long discussions about an issue involving the use of the word gay. In my original post I also went on to draw some similarities and give the reasons for my "hook".

You OTOH, posted a link and excerpt from an article about Roy Disney being forced to step down due to reaching mandatory retirement age. No commentary by you, and no mention of straight or gay in the linked article, so this left most wondering where in heck you got your subject line from. You're the one who went off the deep end about trying to launch some discussion with vague references to right-wing talk shows and their obsession with the homosexualization of Disney. Yet I even asked if you could provide some example of what you were referring to and you declined. You don't want to discuss issues, you want to play games and rejoice in some perceived slight when you get just the reaction you desire.

Well, at least I now know where you got BushSTOPO from.

If you want to talk about something that's "all the rage" on a right-wing talk show, why not post about that?

Example: Last night Michael Savage discussed drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants and his position was XYZ. Some callers added ABC and QRS. I (Tim) think they are wrong, wrong, wrong, and my reasons are LMNOP (as you and I share the gift of long-windedness I used more letters for you Happy )

Then I think you might get responses to your topic instead of to your presentation such as it is or isn't. I read through that thread and couldn't figure out WTH you were talking about with all the vague hints at what we are all missing by not listening to more right-wing talk radio. I listen to maybe 10 hours/week when I'm in the car. Mostly due to the times I travel, that means Sean Hannity, Bob Grant, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and the occasional Curtis and Kuby, Glenn Beck, Rush or Steve Malzberg -- who, BTW, thankfully has been given Art Bell's timeslot although if I do drive in the wee hours on Monday morning, there's nothing on the air but him and Dr. Joy Brown reruns. I guess I'm just not getting enough cuz I fail to glean the same info and conspiracy theory launching pads that you do.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I always wondered, Evie...
Dec 7, 2003 7:24PM PST

Evie, I always wonder what would have happened if that teacher in the LA school had heard those kids talking about their parents "getting stoned" and gotten involved with that conversation. As "stoned" could have related to consumption of something running the gamut from Jack Daniels to heroin, would her entering that situation and/or objecting to it have resulted in the same firestorm, up to lawsuits and the ACLU?
It looks to me that the primary driving force may not have been the law or legality of actions of a teacher, but political and/or religious beliefs.