Chad

The reason I ask is that based on the same criticisms being offered since the 9th circuit refused to reconsider its ruling, it appears as if many religionists, particularly grandstanding politicians, refuse to understand that their right to say "under God" is unaffected whereas government employees are no longer allowed to teach a version that favors their particular religious viewpoint. I can only surmise that these people are willfully stupid when they cannot understand such a simple concept. Am I wrong?

Feather

Some are wilfully stupid. Most, I think, just recognize that people in general are stupid (wilfully or not). Said people don't understand that the phrase, "Pledge Still Unconstitutional" isn't correct, and the politicians/pundits that recognize this stupidity are just exploiting it for power/votes/&c.

christ-on-a-stick

I would venture to say "willfully ignorant".

Within hours of the pledge ruling, I heard everybody and their brother from people on the street to radio talk show hosts, etc. railing about how the ruling was "wrong". And proceeded to explain why they thought so.... based on their personal opinion of "Under God", NOT the ruling. I didn't hear one person say "well, I've read the ruling and think that it is in error here, here and here..." - but yet they were saying the ruling was "wrong".

It only took me a day or so to get into an argument with somebody about it. They were ranting about how the ruling was so obviously stupid, wrong, etc., so I took the opportunity to ask -

"Have you read it?"
"What?" (confused look)
"The ruling. It's available online. Have you read it?"
"Well, no-"
"Then how do you know if it's wrong? On what basis are you disagreeing with the decision?"

Sputtering ensued but I never did get a straight answer.

The same thing *really* pissed me off about all the !@#$%^& politicians that immediately came out and condemned the ruling, also calling it "wrong" and "misguided". I also don't recall hearing a single one of them, on their TV interviews and talk shows and press conferences say anything like "well, I've read the ruling and think that it is in error legally because _____" - again just a bunch of rhetoric and pandering and blowing smoke about nothing more than their personal opinions.

ARGH!!!!

crazyfingers

I'd say that a lot of people only know what they have heard in the headlines and the headlines have misrepresented what the decision said.

Look at what Ashcroft said:

""The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."

That's a complete misrepresetnation.

I've heard people say that the 9th circuit decision bans people from saying the pledge. If that was really what the 9th ruled then I would be against it too. But that's not what the court said.

capsaicin67

Echoing what many of you are saying, what bugs the living sh#t* out of me is how every mainstream media source that I have seen has thoroughly neglected to actually report on the issue. Simply report what the real case is about and then let people decide. All the local and synicated articles/columns misrepresent the gist of the case and are very sure to completely omit any background on the story [like they would generally do on any other major current event]. Just simply share that the current Pledge is an altered version of the original and simply accurately state what both sides of the case are really saying. Instead they run misleading, skewed accounts of the issue. I can't believe that nearly all reporters in the entire country are unaware of the facts of the story. The man and woman on the street that I encounter are every last one clueless. I had to point out to a relative that had been a Scoutmaster that he had the original Pledge in his Scoutbook from the 50's. There is no forum in the mainstream media that is working to tell the real story, that I've seen.

Feather wrote: Some are wilfully stupid. Most, I think, just recognize that people in general are stupid (wilfully or not). Said people don't understand that the phrase, "Pledge Still Unconstitutional" isn't correct, and the politicians/pundits that recognize this stupidity are just exploiting it for power/votes/&c.

Unfortunately, that's about the size of it. That's what we're up against.

Grumpy

Willful stupidity #1: Banning "Under God" is an infringement of religious liberty and an affront to Almight God. Except that the Pledge is a patriotic ritual and not religious, see, and therefore does not run afoul of the First Amendment. Huh?

Willful stupidity #2: If "God" is unconstitutional, the the Constitution is unconstitutional, because it says "In the year of our Lord." (It says "Monday," too. Someone explain to me why that is merely a calendric convention and not a consecration to the Moon.)

Willful stupidity #3: "Under God" merely reflects long-held tradition, and is religously neutral. Removing "Under God" shows a preference for atheism and a hostility to religion. (Except when the Pledge has no religious connotation, see #1.)

gilly54

Wow. You want stupid? Go to the Yahoo Message boards about the Pledge rulings.

" All you atheists are going to hell. Don't you know that E Pluribus Unum means In God We Trust?"

" what's all this fuss about "under God?" They're only words..."

"The Constitution says the government shall not establish a religion. Well, what religion is it establishing? How many converts has saying "under God" created?"

:banghead:

gravitybow

Grumpy:
Regarding willful stupidity #1, 2, 3: I've been thinking exactly the same things, hearing how advocates have argued fron both sides of the fence. Here's another:

Willful stupidity #4: Congress should pass a law making the Pledge mandatory. That's the only way we can preserve the time-honored tradition of reciting it voluntarily.

Alonzo Fyfe

I would call this type of epistemic behavior "intellectual recklessness".

On a moral/ethical sense, I find it no different than material recklessness, where a person performs some physical action in such a way that they show callous disregard for the life, health, liberty, or property of another.

In this case, individuals simply want to preserve the right to have children pledge each day that atheism is equivalent to rebellion, tyranny, and injustice -- without intellectually acknowledging that this is what they are doing.

When the fact is quite obvious to any with a greater respect for intellectual integrity.

lisarea

Over the past little while, I've been slowly downgrading my estimation of peoples' intelligence. At first, I thought that people just didn't understand CSS issues, and needed that explained. Then, it occurred to me that people were making these weird mob rule arguments, so I figured they needed to understand the difference between a majority rules democracy and a constitutional republic.

Lately, it's occurred to me that that doesn't help, either. People simply don't understand the difference between a reasoned, logical argument and an emotional, visceral reaction. I think a lot of these arguments literally go no further than, "This makes me mad, and things that make me mad are bad, and bad stuff is wrong."

I have come to honestly believe that a large percentage of the laymen making arguments for the "under God" clause are incapable of recognizing the difference between their emotions and the facts. I'm completely serious, too.

The politicians, I think, for the most part are just filthy whores willfully violating their oaths of office, and I'd like to see them punished for that. (They won't, of course, because the Constitution and the BofR are just ceremonial at this point.) But as far as the generic angry people, I just pity them to the extent that I pity, say, a moth beating itself against a lightbulb. They're pathetic and annoying, and they don't really deserve the respect or consideration of having their "arguments" acknowledged. They're too stupid, too selfish, and too lazy to listen,anyway. The only thing they'll understand is a good, solid swat with a newspaper.