Alex,

>>My wife, the 2nd grade schoolteacher deals with this issue every year. She explains that those who do not wish to cite the pledge are free not to and may either sit quietly or leave the room. She also explains to the other kids that this is an example of tolerance. It teaches the kids that they don't have to give up their rights for a few nor are the few somehow 'bad' because they don't want to cite the pledge.
>
>Good for her. I wish more were like her.

I'd just be jealous. <bg>

Actually, this kind of gets at my point. I don't want to force anyone to believe anything I do or anything anyone else does. I do wish to be free to defend what I believe and will so do as long as I am able - but never forcing someone else. Persuasion? Sure. But also not preventing someone else from keeping their point of view either.

The thing is is that there will always be someone with a differing pov. The minute anyone's pov suppresses anyone else's then I think that we've perhaps gone over the line. That notion also applies to athiesm or the 'no god' pov as well it seems. That's the rub - there's no middle ground here so it's either one point of view that 'wins' (right now secular humanism - another faith-based point of view) or all equally tolerate each other's position. That means, in practical terms IMO, that all are welcome and none excluded. So, if someone should wish to pray at a commencement they should be allowed, and not stopped, for the simple reason that to stop someone is, in fact, a restriction of their rights for the rights of another. IOW< the rights of another are then deemed as more important than the first. In this case the religion of secular humanism pre-empts that of others.

IOW, equal scales and real toleration, not the phony tolerance that is defined as one view above the others.


>
>
>
>>It also should not prevent me. It should 'tolerate' me and not try and change me as that's promotion of another position - not mine.
>
>The Pledge of Allegiance does not prevent you from praying anytime. Whatever gave you that idea?

No it does not but my point is explained above. IOW, real tolerance will also allow those with faith-based views like mine to be free to express themselves as well as those that are free to express their lack of faith. You desire to not hear my recitation of my faith gives you no right to preclude me from so doing - anywhere I choose - even in a public setting. If you think it does you're just as bigoted as I get accused of being. IOW, your way or no way. IMO you have the right to choose to not have a relationship woth God. Your desire to so choose gives you no right whatsoever to impose that choice upon me (for example).

Freedom of speech also applies to those of faith, you know. <g>

>
>
>http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/07/04/pledge/index.html