Tampa City Council Starts New Fight

[Rob Curry]

Breaking news:

Tampa City Council, atheists fight over Pledge of Allegiance

[Councilman] Joseph Caetano . . . was offended that some people refused to recite the pledge appropriately.

"If they can't, we have got to remove them," Caetano said, while council member Charlie Miranda cast a disapproving look. "I know how you feel, Mr. Miranda.. That's not right. If they don't like it, they should keep their mouths shut."

[SecularSkeptic]

Let's see if they're really serious about throwing people out of the meeting for reciting a slightly different version of the pledge. If we gather a bunch of people for the next meeting, and I hope that we do, will they really throw us out when we do this? We certainly should find out.

[andy 2]

Lets do it.

[John Kieffer]

Front page of St. Pete Times ...



Cont. on page 10A ...




.

[John Kieffer]

I want to share an excellent response on our city council pledge issue from a poster on another forum …

As I understand the article, apparently the people who are omitting the words "under God" skip straight from "one nation" to "indivisible".

Apparently this trips up the Xters.

The Tampa atheists are right, but I'm not sure they should be giving people any legal justification for barring atheists from government. One day the final fight needs to happen. Either you feel government should be secular or theocratic. It can't be both.

However, I don't think this is necessarily a fight Tampa atheists can win at this instant.

1) The jump does disrupt the majority members from finishing the pledge which means business is disrupted because it takes more time to complete.
2) Tampa atheists are not compelled to pledge to God and they can insert a pause in between "one nation" and "indivisible". This allows them to exercise their right to speak differently without disrupting the Xters' speech. (There are alternatives.)
3) Tampa atheists don't have the support of the community.

There might be ways to defeat it though. Smarter legal minds than mind will know.

1) The pledge technically speaking isn't government business. You don't have to say the pledge in order to conduct government business. This might be a reasonable excuse against the disruptive speech claim. If the pledge isn't government business then it can't be protected against disruptive speech.

2) Requiring people to insert a pause into the pledge if they don't want to say "under God" might be a suppression of free speech. If time isn't allotted for atheists to protest the inclusion of the words or they are compelled to insert a pause it deprives them of their right to protest by requiring them to implicitly support the "under God" pledge.
3) If this becomes a national issue - which if this thing goes down you better make sure to carry it to the Supreme Court despite the fact that there are five neocons in there - then you may garner more support.

I think the simplest and best thing to do would just be to get a court to rule that all though an individual has the right to say which ever pledge they wish, using government time to sanction a religious pledge to the exclusion of other pledges constitutes a government endorsement of religion - which is prohibited.

http://www.atheistforums.com/tampa-city ... tml#475656

.

[Rob Curry]

This is a matter of free speech, and calling it disruptive is an exaggeration. People reciting the pledge do not all say it at exactly the same time even if they are using the exact same words! Why isn't it "disruptive" or "confusing" then? Are adults really so easily rattled by the fact that another person is a split second ahead or behing them in this recitation?

The attorney had the good sense to make it a request without phrasing it as a demand for conformity. This is because he knows they do not have a case.

Forget the war metaphors. This is no battle. This is merely a matter of people saying the pledge in the way they find most comfortable. We are not telling others to omit the ridiculous words, "under god." And they should not tell us to include them or even to make a special pause for their inclusion, humming along, as it were. No! Absolutely not.

It's not about winning a battle. This is about refusing to battle. All we want is to be left alone as we exercise our freedom of speech in a manner that truly disrupts nothing.

The time for being complicit in our own oppression is over.

[TampaMike]

I suppose they make this into a big deal because they are defending their faith, which has no place there. This seems like a much smaller issue than the prayers before the meetings. People should be able to say the pledge how they like, since it is a personal pledge to the country, not a christian prayer to a god. They can take this as an attack on their view of the pledge, and that fine, because its not a personal attack on anyone, its a personal expression. Cause you are not trying to force your way on to them, you simply want a freedom of speech. It becomes a personal attack when someone says you are not allow to pledge in your own manner.

[Celestial Teapot]

"If they can't, we have got to remove them," Caetano said, while council member Charlie Miranda cast a disapproving look. "I know how you feel, Mr. Miranda.. That's not right. If they don't like it, they should keep their mouths shut."

Hmm...I'd like him to tell that my face.

[Killer Bud]

[Councilman] Joseph Caetano . . . was offended that some people refused to recite the pledge appropriately.

"If they can't, we have got to remove them," Caetano said, while council member Charlie Miranda cast a disapproving look. "I know how you feel, Mr. Miranda.. That's not right. If they don't like it, they should keep their mouths shut."

Hey Joseph
You just opened a can of worms didn't you? Telling people to shut up like that is asinine to the nth degree, and not only will I not shut up, I am going to be more vocal than ever! Thanks man, that was the kick in the butt I needed to get even more active in my community of atheist brothers and sisters.

Rob,
It sucks he said that towards you, (us) but maybe some good will come from it in the end.

[Celestial Teapot]

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to write e-mails or letters to these people expressing our disgust?

[John Kieffer]

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to write e-mails or letters to these people expressing our disgust?

If you're fired up to write, letters to the editor of our local newspapers would be more effective. You can submit these letters online to the St Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune:

St. Petersburg Times ...

http://www.sptimes.com/letters/

Tampa Tribune ... (midway down right side of page)

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/


.

[Celestial Teapot]

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to write e-mails or letters to these people expressing our disgust?

If you're fired up to write, letters to the editor of our local newspapers would be more effective. You can submit these letters online to the St Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune:

St. Petersburg Times ...

http://www.sptimes.com/letters/

Tampa Tribune ... (midway down right side of page)

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/


.

Oh it fired me up alright. Sure did lol.