Sean Hannity, the Pledge, and Christmas

Berzerker · December 11, 2003, 23:17

All adds up to hypocrisy...

Hannity has decried that a minority would seek the removal of the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance thereby "denying" the majority it's right to...take oaths (?). But now Hannity is on the other side, a class of 7 year olds in Washington state voted to keep the word "winter" in a song as a substitute for "Christmas" and Hannity is complaining again...

The mother of one student, whom Hannity is cheering on, declared that you can't ask 7 year olds to vote on something like that because they don't understand the concepts involved. I tend to agree, small children don't understand these concepts, that's kind of why we have age of consent laws wrt other matters.

But why does Hannity claim we can't let the minority exclude "under God" from the pledge because the majority of children want to recite those words but now the majority of these 7 year olds must be over-ruled by the minority? Live by majority rule, die by majority rule...

Nubclear · December 11, 2003, 23:23

Bad example.

Berzerker · December 11, 2003, 23:36

Of what?

Nubclear · December 11, 2003, 23:37

Hannity hypocrisy.

MrFun · December 11, 2003, 23:40

Somehow this thread will tie in with why libertarianism is the best form of government for the world.

Theben · December 11, 2003, 23:47

Sorry Berzerk, but unless you have a Xmas avatar I can't help you.

Berzerker · December 11, 2003, 23:55

CT, preaching majority rule when it suits you, then preaching minority rule when it suits you, is hypocrisy.

Mr Fun, I don't jump into your threads to announce how whatever it is you're talking will relate to homosexuality.

Berzerker · December 11, 2003, 23:56

Theben, that's my winter avatar

Theben · December 12, 2003, 01:31

But it doesn't have a hat.

Imran Siddiqui · December 12, 2003, 01:38

Yeah this is kind of a silly example of Hannity hypocracy, when there are so many better examples there. It'd be like saying it is hypocritical to say we should have majority rule in our democracy, but being against a bunch of kids deciding to skip school because they can't make informed decisions yet.

The hypocracy here is a result of a strech by the thread starter.

MrFun · December 12, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Mr Fun, I don't jump into your threads to announce how whatever it is you're talking will relate to homosexuality.

Just having a little fun -- but please, carry on without me.

Berzerker · December 12, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

It'd be like saying it is hypocritical to say we should have majority rule in our democracy, but being against a bunch of kids deciding to skip school because they can't make informed decisions yet.

The hypocracy here is a result of a strech by the thread starter.

Your analogy is askew (I like that word

), in support of the pledge Hannity cites what the majority of students allegedly want but rejects that principle when the majority of students in this music class vote against what he wants. This isn't about adults voting in one case and students voting in another...

Gatekeeper · December 12, 2003, 03:27

I'm just wondering how our forebears *survived* prior to the early 1950s, when "under God" was added to the Pledge just to make us look more God-fearing than the (officially) atheistic Soviet Union). Were our forebears unenlightened heathens?

Gatekeeper

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 06:01

If the Pledge means nothing, why should we care about removing the words? Why not let bygones be bygones?

uh Clem · December 12, 2003, 08:12

If the pledge means nothing, why is it so important to have under God in it?

Of course, that is part of a decent school's mission: teaching students to fit in by performing meaningless rituals.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 08:36

asking hannity for intellectual integrity rather than half-truths and spin is like asking al franken to say something nice about fox news.

that **** just ain't happenin'.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 08:37

besides, if hannity were worth his salt, he wouldn't have half his show devoted to callers calling in to just say how good he is. hell, i'm depressed, and i don't need that kind of ego boost.

PLATO · December 12, 2003, 08:55

Well IMHO, it can't hurt to say "one nation under God". Everyone is free to have their own concept of God. If you believe that their is no God, then "one nation under nothing" is the implied meaning for you and isn't that what you are really saying?

As for the song, the writer used "Christmas" not "winter". If you want winter...use a different song.

TheStinger · December 12, 2003, 09:32

I can't believe that a nation can be so insecure about the patriotism of its youngsters that they are involved in a state sponsored affirmation of loyalty.

Its all a bit 1984

Caligastia · December 12, 2003, 10:23

I would say Hannity is probably more concerned with the removal of Christianity from everyday life than the issue of whether a majority should rule or not. I don't think he is necessarily being inconsistent here either. With respect to both issues I think we could safely say that the majority of the country would take Hannity's side.

Personally, I think it's a shame that Christmas songs can no longer be sung in schools without politics getting in the way.

DinoDoc · December 12, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But now Hannity is on the other side, a class of 7 year olds in Washington state voted to keep the word "winter" in a song as a substitute for "Christmas" and Hannity is complaining again...

That seems like a wierd thing to worry about enough to put to a vote to anyone. What was the song anyway?

Imran Siddiqui · December 12, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

in support of the pledge Hannity cites what the majority of students allegedly want but rejects that principle when the majority of students in this music class vote against what he wants.

Where does this come from? When did Hannity ever say the majority of STUDENTS want 'under God' in the pledge? He merely says the majority want it, which means the adults as well as the students (probably more the adults). From the opening post it says nothing about the majority of students want it.

GePap · December 12, 2003, 17:38

under God was a 1954 congressional addition..no reason to have any loyalty to the anti-communist ranting of the 50's congress.

Boris Godunov · December 12, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
Well IMHO, it can't hurt to say "one nation under God". Everyone is free to have their own concept of God. If you believe that their is no God, then "one nation under nothing" is the implied meaning for you and isn't that what you are really saying?

As for the song, the writer used "Christmas" not "winter". If you want winter...use a different song.

Everyone is free to have their own concept of Satan. So if we substituted Satan for God, would that be hunky-dory to the religionistas?

GePap · December 12, 2003, 18:03

One nation under Allah..one nation under Zeus?

Why not, one nation under an unknown supernatural essence? or one nation under the Gods?

The pledge of alliegence spent most of its history without the "under God" statement. I say, this is one case where a return to the good old days is called for, to undo this congressional add-on.

Imran Siddiqui · December 12, 2003, 18:08

Quote:

one nation under Zeus

Boris Godunov · December 12, 2003, 18:09

I have a good comromise. To many, if not all, religious folks, God is love, love is god. Atheists also cherish the importance of love.

So, how about "One Nation, Under Love"

Problem solved. Thank you.

Imran Siddiqui · December 12, 2003, 18:12

Make war, not love

GePap · December 12, 2003, 18:13

One nation, under Cheese

This brought to you by the National Cheese council.

Imran Siddiqui · December 12, 2003, 18:14

Naw, it has to be under Apple Pie... more patriotic