Unilaterally Changing the Pledge

[dilloduck]

Well, gee.. The excuse they gave was "he didn't stand". *rolls eyes*

Yeah.. I can see where that would be picking on religious folks.

Get a grip.

grips fine , hon. Worry about your own paranoia and bigotry------"he didnt stand" was not necessarily why he lost the recall vote. Can you prove to me it was?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Instead of "one nation, under God," the voice said, "one nation, under your belief system."

somebody wanted 15 minutes of fame. what a maroon. :duh3:

 

[Shattered]

"he didnt stand" was not necessarily why he lost the recall vote. Can you prove to me it was?

Here you go.. Not one single thing about how he does his job, or whether or not he's suddenly not qualified. Their entire focus is on whether he stands or not.

Politician Who Won't Say Pledge Of Allegiance May Be Recalled

POSTED: 11:53 am EST December 15, 2004
UPDATED: 1:08 pm EST December 15, 2004

DENVER -- A recall election is now set for an Estes Park, Colo., trustee who refuses to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during the Town Board meetings.

David Habecker sits while others stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I have not been standing for the Pledge of Allegiance due to a conflict I have with the wording of the pledge, specifically the words 'under God,'" Councilman David Habecker said.

Habecker said it's a violation of church and state to include the words in the pledge and for that reason, he won't stand.

The board began reciting the pledge before meetings earlier this year at the suggestion of Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark. She suggested it as a way to show respect for the country during wartime.

Jeffrey-Clark said Habecker is expressing his personal views, not representing townspeople, when he sits down.

Habecker, who's served on the Town Board for 12 years, said he doesn't oppose the meaning of the pledge, and considers himself a patriot.

But some other council members and residents are upset about his actions and have enough signatures to hold a recall election. That recall election will occur Tuesday, Feb. 15.

All residents will vote on whether to recall David Habecker and a choice for his replacement in the event the recall passes. The recall is expected to cost a few thousand dollars.

"I'm sad for the community, that there is that much intolerance in our community. But if the people want to have a voice in what's going on, this is their way of doing it. And I will respect whatever the wishes of the community are," Habecker said.

Estes Park, which has about 5,500 residents, is the eastern gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park about 60 miles northwest of Denver.

 

[KarlMarx]

Here you go.. Not one single thing about how he does his job, or whether or not he's suddenly not qualified. Their entire focus is on whether he stands or not.

Politician Who Won't Say Pledge Of Allegiance May Be Recalled

POSTED: 11:53 am EST December 15, 2004
UPDATED: 1:08 pm EST December 15, 2004

DENVER -- A recall election is now set for an Estes Park, Colo., trustee who refuses to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during the Town Board meetings.

David Habecker sits while others stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I have not been standing for the Pledge of Allegiance due to a conflict I have with the wording of the pledge, specifically the words 'under God,'" Councilman David Habecker said.

Habecker said it's a violation of church and state to include the words in the pledge and for that reason, he won't stand.

The board began reciting the pledge before meetings earlier this year at the suggestion of Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark. She suggested it as a way to show respect for the country during wartime.

Jeffrey-Clark said Habecker is expressing his personal views, not representing townspeople, when he sits down.

Habecker, who's served on the Town Board for 12 years, said he doesn't oppose the meaning of the pledge, and considers himself a patriot.

But some other council members and residents are upset about his actions and have enough signatures to hold a recall election. That recall election will occur Tuesday, Feb. 15.

All residents will vote on whether to recall David Habecker and a choice for his replacement in the event the recall passes. The recall is expected to cost a few thousand dollars.

"I'm sad for the community, that there is that much intolerance in our community. But if the people want to have a voice in what's going on, this is their way of doing it. And I will respect whatever the wishes of the community are," Habecker said.

Estes Park, which has about 5,500 residents, is the eastern gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park about 60 miles northwest of Denver.

Sorry... gotta disagree with you.... first off, the whole "separation of church and state" is a myth, concocted by some liberal Supreme Court justice to justify banishing prayer from school in 1963. Prior to that, it was not a concept. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state sponsored church. If the founding fathers actually wanted separation of church and state, then why did they start the practice of starting each session of Congress with a prayer led by a priest, minister or rabbi?

Sitting the pledge out is a brazen act of disrespect towards our country. To me, that alone disqualifies the man. If he doesn't have the any love for this country, then he should not be serving the public interest. Since his lack of respect for America would cast a big shadow of doubt if he would have the best interests of the public good ("the public" being made up of Americans, citizens of the country he shows contempt towards).

Furthermore, if the man's position were the opposite and he started pushing to have the Bible taught in public schools and furthermore having, say, Catholic theology taught to children, he would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.

 

[Shattered]

Sorry... gotta disagree with you.... first off, the whole "separation of church and state" is a myth, concocted by some liberal Supreme Court justice to justify banishing prayer from school in 1963. Prior to that, it was not a concept. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state sponsored church. If the founding fathers actually wanted separation of church and state, then why did they start the practice of starting each session of Congress with a prayer led by a priest, minister or rabbi?

Sitting the pledge out is a brazen act of disrespect towards our country. To me, that alone disqualifies the man. If he doesn't have the any love for this country, then he should not be serving the public interest. Since his lack of respect for America would cast a big shadow of doubt if he would have the best interests of the public good ("the public" being made up of Americans, citizens of the country he shows contempt towards).

Furthermore, if the man's position were the opposite and he started pushing to have the Bible taught in public schools and furthermore having, say, Catholic theology taught to children, he would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.

I still don't see how refusal to accept "under God" is displaying a lack of love for this country. We (as a nation) seem to be pretty intolerant of an awful lot of little piddly stuff...

Again, if it's a requirement, put it on the job application. He held this position for 12 years, I believe, before someone went nutty on him.

Not two weeks ago, people were arguing that they should be allowed to stick to their own personal/religious beliefs in their line of work. Suddenly, it's wrong for this person to.

 

[dilloduck]

I still don't see how refusal to accept "under God" is displaying a lack of love for this country. We (as a nation) seem to be pretty intolerant of an awful lot of little piddly stuff...

Again, if it's a requirement, put it on the job application. He held this position for 12 years, I believe, before someone went nutty on him.

Not two weeks ago, people were arguing that they should be allowed to stick to their own personal/religious beliefs in their line of work. Suddenly, it's wrong for this person to.

After 12 years the guy went nutty on himself and the recall was set up. The people of the community had a choice at that time as they do in ANY election--pick him or the other guy----they picked the other guy and you do not know why--no one does. Are you sugguesting that the feds get involved in a city election?

 

[Shattered]

After 12 years the guy went nutty on himself and the recall was set up. The people of the community had a choice at that time as they do in ANY election--pick him or the other guy----they picked the other guy and you do not know why--no one does. Are you sugguesting that the feds get involved in a city election?

Get off the drugs, Dillo. The article states why they started the reelection process in the first place. Feds? You're the one that brought them up - not me. Perhaps YOU are suggesting they get involved.

The guy didn't go nutty on himself - he simply did as he seemingly always does, which is quietly "sit this one out". For that, he lost his job. He also seems to have taken it with good graces, which should tell you something right there - that he's not "against" this country. If he were, I'm sure he'd try to cause all kinds of trouble.

Can YOU find anything stating differently?

 

[dilloduck]

Get off the drugs, Dillo. The article states why they started the reelection process in the first place. Feds? You're the one that brought them up - not me. Perhaps YOU are suggesting they get involved.

The guy didn't go nutty on himself - he simply did as he seemingly always does, which is quietly "sit this one out". For that, he lost his job. He also seems to have taken it with good graces, which should tell you something right there - that he's not "against" this country. If he were, I'm sure he'd try to cause all kinds of trouble.

Can YOU find anything stating differently?

The board began reciting the pledge before meetings earlier this year at the suggestion of Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark. She suggested it as a way to show respect for the country during wartime.

This is recent beavior that he started AFTER the last election. Like it or not, the people made a choice and that choice was that they didn't want this guy working for them any more. Are you saying that his atheism should protect him from the voters?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Every time you use that stupid "picking on religious folks" bs excuse for you not agreeing with what I'm saying, I go back to ignoring you.

So.. tata.

 

[Shattered]

This is recent beavior that he started AFTER the last election. Like it or not, the people made a choice and that choice was that they didn't want this guy working for them any more. Are you saying that his atheism should protect him from the voters?

Are you saying Christianity should override everyone elses belief system? You said yourself that you have more agnostic tendencies than anything else. I trust, then, that you're just looking for an excuse to argue.

Again, why wasn't this requirement listed on the job application? His religious beliefs were "assumed" by many. When it turns out they really aren't that of the majority, that's suddenly good enough to get rid of him after this long? He specifically stated the portion that he was opposed to. Everyone else turned that into blatant disrespect for a country he's lived his entire life in, and obviously cares about, given the job he sought.

I'm going to work.

 

[freeandfun1]

So just which religion does uttering the words 'under God' endorse? There are thousands of religions in this world and therefore, thousands of Gods. He was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. And he got it!

 

[dilloduck]

Are you saying Christianity should override everyone elses belief system? You said yourself that you have more agnostic tendencies than anything else. I trust, then, that you're just looking for an excuse to argue.

Again, why wasn't this requirement listed on the job application? His religious beliefs were "assumed" by many. When it turns out they really aren't that of the majority, that's suddenly good enough to get rid of him after this long? He specifically stated the portion that he was opposed to. Everyone else turned that into blatant disrespect for a country he's lived his entire life in, and obviously cares about, given the job he sought.

I'm going to work.

Agnostic tendencies are a far cry from atheism.
If there were such a thing as separation of church and state, could you explain to me how both theism and atheim can coexist in our form of government?

 

[Shattered]

Agnostic tendencies are a far cry from atheism.
If there were such a thing as separation of church and state, could you explain to me how both theism and atheim can coexist in our form of government?

Guess we'd have to find a way, wouldn't we?

Since you're obviously misunderstanding my point, and/or reading in to what I have to say, I'll clarify.

A) I never once said people didn't have the right to vote him out of his position for whatever reason. I said *I* don't think it's right to vote him out for something that's not specifically insubordination, according to his job description. It's not something I would have ever done. I tend to be a little more tolerant than that. It's their community - they can do whatever they like. I don't have to agree with it, and I believe I said as much. That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make you right, either. It's called a difference of opinion.

 

[dilloduck]

Guess we'd have to find a way, wouldn't we?

Since you're obviously misunderstanding my point, and/or reading in to what I have to say, I'll clarify.

A) I never once said people didn't have the right to vote him out of his position for whatever reason. I said *I* don't think it's right to vote him out for something that's not specifically insubordination, according to his job description. It's not something I would have ever done. I tend to be a little more tolerant than that. It's their community - they can do whatever they like. I don't have to agree with it, and I believe I said as much. That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make you right, either. It's called a difference of opinion.

This is one of the *reasons* for this *forum*. To offer up and *debate* opinions. Am I not *allowed* to *disagree* ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Because he is a councilman and councilmen make a pledge to the people of the city and in most cases, to upholding the laws of the United States. If he can't stand during the pledge of allegiance, then what should make one think he will uphold his pledge to the citizens of his town?

Doesn't mean anyone has to say it the way he wants to.

 

[Shattered]

This is one of the *reasons* for this *forum*. To offer up and *debate* opinions. Am I not *allowed* to *disagree* ?

Sure. You think I'm a bigot. I disagree.

I think you're a jackass for referring to me as a bigot. You disagree.

 

[dilloduck]

Sure. You think I'm a bigot. I disagree.

I think you're a jackass for referring to me as a bigot. You disagree.

being able to back up what you say gives one more credibility--If you just want to express an opinon and have it left unresponded to I suggest you just let folks know.

 

[Shattered]

being able to back up what you say gives one more credibility--If you just want to express an opinon and have it left unresponded to I suggest you just let folkd know.

What does my opinion that it wasn't grounds for termination have to do with name-calling?

 

[dilloduck]

What does my opinion that it wasn't grounds for termination have to do with name-calling?

simple--I think your opinion is based on your bigotry against those "of faith".

 

[Shattered]

simple--I think your opinion is based on your bigotry against those "of faith".

I don't think you know me well enough to make a judgement call like that, but you're welcome to your uninformed, and inaccurate opinion.