KenDckey
Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper There are certain pieces of speech that are banned in society. You can't threaten people with violence. You can't threaten the President's life. You can't yell "fire" in a theater. A little less dramatic: You can't reveal certain company secrets outside the company. Or from the other side of the communication... You can't let minors in to see R and X rated movies and you can't show X rated movies on public television. Its not what gets communicated, its the level of social responsibility involved in allowing the free exchange of that specific communication. In this case, the communication being the phrase "Under God" which may not be directly unconstitutional, since the pledge is by no means mandatory, becomes unconstitutional when it is used in government funded activities - like schools and universities. In this case, the ban is perfectly legit. I can agree that if they take it off the agenda, thus making it non-mandatory, is absolutely correct. What bothers me is that they banned it. Banning, because it mentions God, is tatramount to banning any mention of any diaty (sp) of any religion practiced by anyone (isn't that a violation of freedom of religion practices?) and by specifically banning the pledge of allegiance isn't that a violation of freedom of political speech? And banning religious speech on public property tratramount to banning religion (whether or not you believe in any God) because isn't the property of the churches generally owned by the people of that church and not to a specific individual? And isn't property owned by the people considered public property? If you take it off the agenda, then formally saying the Pledge of Alligience, would be a violation of the rules of order? That doesn't have the same effect of banning it completely which I still contend would violate freedome of speech/religion which because of the ban would subject those that do say it to some form of punitive action?
|