A Post Of Ignorance

I was going to spend some time dissecting this rant from the Roy Moore blog. Someone else beat me to it, though. So I’ll just provide a quick summary in case you don’t want to follow the links.

Roy’s disciple is terribly upset that the student government at a community college in California decided to stop opening meetings with the pledge of allegiance.

The screed makes sure we know that one of the students is “an atheist and a socialist.” The author also finds it offensive that students would exercise their freedom “In the wake of this past weekend’s celebration of the sacrifices that our brave veterans have made so that we might be free.” And of course, he clarifies everything for us by baldly asserting “that the First Amendment does not forbid acknowledgments of God by the government.”

Here’s the detailed response to these non-arguments, if you need it. But I’m sure you are smart enough to realize they are a load of crap.  

First, the fact that these students are allegedly socialists and atheists has nothing to do with the merits of their arguments; if they had voted to have donuts and coffee at all meetings, would donuts and coffee now be bad? Oh, and by the way, the author of the pledge of allegiance? A socialist

Second, it seems to me that refusing to swear a loyalty oath is pretty consistent with fighting for freedom. And in any event, I’m sure that all of our soldiers are mature enough to understand that fighting for other people’s freedom means fighting for the right of those people to say and do things the soldier might not like.

Third, as ex-Judge Moore could certainly testify, plenty of courts would disagree with the assertion that the First Amendment allows the government to acknowledge God (whatever that means). And even if the writer is correct about the government acknowledging God that does not mean that these students can’t, or shouldn’t, decide to provide more religious freedom than the constitution provides. That the government can acknowledge God does not mean a student led group must acknowledge God.

To his credit, the author concludes:

Supporters of the “American experiment,” as Alexis de Tocqueville once called it, have nothing to fear from socialist rabble-rousers like Mr. Ball because his view, like the countries that have practiced such philosophies, will wind up on the ash heap of history where it belongs.

This is exactly why we have the First Amendment. We don’t need to fear “socialist rabble-rousers” or insane theocrats because if either is going to succeed it will have to be on the strength of their arguments. Neither group is allowed government help.  

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Free Speech, God and government, Goobers, Roy and the Clones

4 Comments on “A Post Of Ignorance”

  1. Greg Jones Says:

    Alablawg,
    Your arguments are quite sad. I would beg you to read the post again after you adjust your glasses because you missed the point entirely. First, I did not simply “call names” in mentioning the “atheist/socialist” aspect of the story. The students themselves proudly proclaimed that they are such and that “under God” in the Pledge is the primary reason they chose to dispense with Pledge recitation. Indeed, “under God” is the reason they feared some people would feel uncomfortable reciting the Pledge. Atheism and socialism have everything to do with the story, while your observation about Francis Bellamy being a socialist does not because that fact has not had any effect on what the Pledge means in this country. Second, your comment about refusing to swear a loyalty oath misunderstands the purpose of the Pledge and ignores my statement in the post on that subject. Some people seem not to understand that our Pledge is NOT a loyalty oath; it is a personal affirmation of common values and beliefs that people may or may not recite by their own choosing. Third, I “baldly assert[ed]” that the First Amendment does not forbid public acknowledgments of God rather than explaining that point in detail because that point has been explained repeatedly on our blog, as its readers are well aware. There is no need to repeat it every time. Fourth, I did not say that these students could not outlaw something that the Constitution permits; in fact, my last paragraph is all about their right to do such things. Fifth and finally, you excoriate me for labeling them atheists and socialists and then label me an “insane theocrat.” Very mature, very persuasive, and entirely in keeping with with your ad hominem style.

  2. wheeler Says:

    “First, I did not simply ‘call names’ in mentioning the ‘atheist/socialist’ aspect of the story.”

    – yeah, ya did. you threw out these poisonous labels without providing any explanation of how they were relevent to the student’s arguments. they chose to stop opening the meetings with the pledge because they thought it was divisive and that the God language was offensive. they may be right, they may be wrong. but that one of the students is an atheist or a socialist does not have anything to do with the merits of the decision.

    “Second, . . . the Pledge is NOT a loyalty oath; it is a personal affirmation of common values and beliefs that people may or may not recite by their own choosing.”

    -then why are you in such a tizzy over a small group of students on the other side of the country deciding to “not recite [it] by their own choosing?”

    -also, my point was to expose your appeal to our soldiers as the emotionally manipulative distraction that it is.

    “Third, I ‘baldly assert[ed]’ that the First Amendment does not forbid public acknowledgments of God rather than explaining that point in detail because that point has been explained repeatedly on our blog, as its readers are well aware.”

    – great. you’re still wrong. btw, how’s the ex-judge doing?

    “Fourth, I did not say that these students could not outlaw something that the Constitution permits.”

    -then what purpose did your comment about the first amendment serve? it had no relevance. these kids are not state actors and even if they were, they would be perfectly free to stop opening meetings with the pledge, your views of the pledge notwithstanding.

    “Fifth and finally, you excoriate me for labeling them atheists and socialists and then label me an ‘insane theocrat.’ Very mature, very persuasive, and entirely in keeping with with your ad hominem style.”

    – no, i excoriated you because your argument was “they’re socialists and atheists, therefore they are wrong.” i, on the other hand, discussed the merits of your claims before i called you what you are: an insane theocrat.

  3. Baudrillard Says:

    Nicely done Wheeler.

    Mr. Jones, how in heaven’s name does the fact that some students in California have chosen not to open an SGA meeting with the Pledge bolster the agenda you and Roy espouse on your blog? That story is the equivalent of acknowledging that some people don’t endorse your ideology. My question to you is, “so what?” You have wasted my time here with your rantings and your inane attempts to substantiate your views by subverting Wheeler’s. By the way, as Wheeler aptly demonstrated, you were unsucessful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: