It took a while before my homeroom “teacher” finally got upset by this, and he said I should be “more respectful” or some equally meaningless crap. I just laughed at him, and said the butchery performed on the Pledge by the Knights of Columbus in 1954 was a lot more disrespectful to the nation than I could ever be, given as it was in direct opposition to the establishment clause.

From then on, though, I returned to saying the Pledge — the 1924-1953 form. I belted it out and plowed right through the “under god” part, not waiting for the rest of the class to catch up. By the end of the semester I had a number of other students chiming in in this manner, so much so that “under god” was completely drowned out by a roar of “indivisible.”

Education is the single most important thing a nation can invest in. Without a reasonably intelligent population, nothing gets done and crime skyrockets. To that end, it’s profoundly disturbing that we’d poison our own education system with lies and nonsense irrelevant to today’s world, perhaps even to that of the bronze age.

On June 29th, 2002, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the coerced recitation of the Pledge of allegiance in its current state unconstitutional, so my high school years (99/01 – 04/05) saw a blissful absence of it — but then again, the school had already dumped the Pledge eight years prior.

I like seeing courageous actions like these in school, especially in regions where it’s the biggest problem. The horrifying thing about all of this is that these preachers like to hide behind free speech, like that makes any sense. It’s wrong to teach biology students that DNA isn’t real for exactly the same reason — schools are for education, not proselytizing.

i didn’t take your comment about your son not being an atheist as derogatory, i doubt many others here did either. you sound like you’re doing a great job in raising your child to be a thoughtful, articulate person, who accepts personal responsibility and is willing to give serious thought to his conclusions – even if his conclusions end up being religious in nature.

i sincerely hope your son carries on in this vein wherever it takes him, and that he also ceases to be a target for the small-minded hostilities he’s currently experiencing. although, it sounds like even if the bigots continue to harass him, you are already equipping him with the tools (including a loving and supportive family) he will need to survive.

thanx for taking time to read and respond to all the posts here.
i wish you + yours well.

Wesley just found out today that this was here and showed it to me this afternoon. I just wanted to clear up a couple of points if I can.

I truly did not mean for my comment about Wesley not being an athiest to be taken as derogatory. The truth is that Wesley is really undecided about what he is or is not at this time. After all, he is only fourteen years old.

Wesley wrote this letter after being bullied at school because he does not go to church. Every time that topic came up at school, he was told that he was a bad person because he was not in church everytime the doors were open. These same children called him an athiest because that is the only thing their narrow minds could think of at the time. These are the same children that called him a homosexual because he wears his hair longer than they do. Again, this is just because of the narrow-mindedness that runs rampant here. These are the so-called good “Christian” children.

I have not forced any religion or non-religion on him and that is in direct conflict with most parents around here. I have tried to expose him to many different kinds of religions. I believe that my religious rights end where yours begin. This does not mean that I have not tried to teach him good morals and character. Personal responsibility is a big topic in our house.

Wesley was harassed at school all day today. I suppose that will have to be addressed. Maybe all the administrators were too busy planning their next assembly to do their jobs.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Melissa Norris
Wesley’s Proud Mother

“The Bible Belt is the Bible Belt.” Yeah, because it’s assumed as a matter of course that the culture is Christian conservative, that everyone is supposed to be Christian conservative, and if you’re not, you don’t have a voice and that’s just how it is. (That’s what makes kids more religious – and intolerant – not “listening to a couple of speakers.”) Which will never change if people don’t stand up to those cultural assumptions like this young man, and if people like him don’t get at least moral support from other people.

Don’t fool yourself with your “live and let live” pose. You’re defending the status quo here, and the status quo is not “live and let live,” it’s “our way or the highway.” If you’re poo-pooing efforts to undermine that, you’re part of the problem.

Happens all the time around here… Who would enforce against such activity?

Yes it is true. I live in the Bible Belt as well. I don’t know what the big deal is, really. In my experience, most kids don’t really care, nor are they any more likely to become “religious” from listening to a couple of speakers. If the speakers have a positive message, why get hung up on the legal issues? Maybe I just don’t get it.

Whatever happened to the phrase “When in Rome….” The Bible Belt is the Bible Belt. Miss-sippi (as it’s pronounced there .. ) will be Miss-sippi.

Ethically, it seems beside the point: a school shouldn’t be allowed to proselytize its students, or give over school time and resources to allow others to proselytize its students, period. It doesn’t matter if all the students attend, or half of them, or only one, and it doesn’t matter if it’s “voluntary” or “mandatory.”

“If you don’t want to go to the Jesus rally like everyone else, just stand up and raise your hand, and then you’ll be allowed to go sit in the corner by yourself” is hardly a decent alternative, especially in a setting like high school where the twin forces of adult authority and peer pressure are both so powerful.

But beyond the ethical/pedagogical question, I’m fairly sure that it’s a settled matter of law that such “opt out” options don’t make school proselytizing constitutional. I don’t know enough to pinpoint what court case or cases might have determined that – I feel like it was a case over the “under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. Am I just imagining this?

Who would enforce against such activity? The very people who are trying to push us into it? I think not.

Enjoy.

He’s asked some intelligent questions and instigated others to ask more of the same. If there are risks, I don’t think he has invited them, or welcomes them.

What is impressive to me, is that he has found a position to stand that lies in the middle of the road. Ironically, this is a realm where Jesus walked and one that has no conflict with material evidence … and yet it is a realm of great liability due to the conflict with dogma.