• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Krista Kafer, Littleton

Recently, a small group of Boulder High School students staged a walkout because they could not bear to hear the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. One such student told the Rocky Mountain News the group will continue to protest until the school segregates those who wish to say the pledge so “the rest of the school doesn’t have to listen to them.” Colorado law, which requires school districts to provide an opportunity for willing students to recite the pledge, explicitly exempts students who wish to abstain.

Although a silly teen stunt, the walkout reflects a larger effort by the offended to silence those with whom they disagree. Rather than engage in discourse and offer their own ideas, they shout down speakers, censor skeptics, try to halt parades, ban holiday celebrations, shamelessly smear their opponents and occasionally throw pies. The offended like to use the word “tolerant,” but their actions show they truly abhor diversity of opinion.

The offended in this case are every bit as hypocritical; their made-up substitute pledge references the U.S. Constitution, the very document that affirms every American’s right to free speech — even those Boulder High students who want to say the pledge. According to the First Amendment, the federal government cannot prohibit free speech, religious expression or peaceful assembly, control the press or prevent citizens from petitioning their government. On the contrary, the purpose of government, according to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, is to protect individuals’ inalienable, God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of which freedom of expression is an important part. The purpose of government is neither to give nor take individual rights but to preserve them equally.

Individuals have an equal right to expression because they “are created equal,” to quote the Declaration of Independence. No one has the right to silence another. In some countries, the government actively or passively enables one tribe, ethnic or religious group to trample the rights of others. The power of government is used to censor minority views. Blasphemy is punished.

To be sure, the offended in America would like the government to grant them power over the speech of others. They would like a “heckler’s veto,” to use Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words. The late justice noted in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, upholding voluntary recitation of the pledge, that the “Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so.”

In the U.S., no group can legitimately use the power of the federal government to silence another group or individual. Rep. Mark Udall’s congressional resolution denouncing radio personality Rush Limbaugh comes eerily close. As does Sen. Ken Salazar’s effort to force the radio host to apologize for a misconstrued statement that offended the left. Censuring individuals is not their job, quite the opposite. Anyone can turn off the radio. It is not the place of government to do it for him.

Colorado’s Constitution is even more specific about freedom of expression. It says, “No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.” Although the General Assembly may not infringe on the right of expression, it continues, those who abuse that liberty may be found guilty in court of libel by a jury of their peers.

With liberty comes responsibility. Slander or libel can land you in court. Drop the F-bomb into a
quarterly report or, say, a public university newspaper column and you might express yourself out of a job. Words have consequences. Employment, reputation and relationships depend on the wise use of liberty. Even so, it is not the place of government to referee.

So what are the offended to do without a heckler’s veto? They can turn off the radio and quietly eat their pie. Alternatively, they can engage in the free discourse and debate that is essential to a thriving democracy. No matter, they cannot silence others. No one has a right not to be offended.

Krista Kafer is a freelance writer living in Littleton.

READER COMMENTS

These students need to be corrected. It is not real life to just simply "go where we don't have to hear it" since throughout their lives, they are going to hear all kinds of opinions they will not like.
When I was in school, everyone in class had the right to either say the Pledge, or sit silently. I would participate, but I would not say the God part. It was fine. Just because I chose not to say that part does not mean that no one else should.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion. If you don't want to do something, simply do not participate. These students need a reality check. Not everything is going to be their way in life. There are two sides to everything and thousands of ways to live. They need to get used to that.

Ah yes , the Pledge, in its original form read "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
The words "of the United States of America" were added in 1942 and "under God " was inserted in 1954. It was original an advert for a flagmakingcompany back in the 1890s and later became popular with civic groups and the like. Oh, I amost forgot, it was written by a Socialist preacher named Bellamy.

Poorly written Miss draftdodgingisntafamily value. What are you even talking about?

Bill "phone-sex" offender" O'Reilly (draftdodger), "the folks should dissent responsibly". TRANSLATION: Nearly 4K dead kids (sitting ducks and targets), none of whom are from GOP "hoods".

Well written Ms. Kafer,
Did you not know that freedom of speech and expression are only for "some" and not for others?

Biff if it is so witless please add your commentary otherwise your statement is complete drivel.
And Mick,
you need to read the constitution that is the foundation of our society and while you're at it read the bill of rights rather than just listening to your lefty talking points. For the umpteenth time this is not and never will be a separation issue as the school is not starting or forcing a religion on anyone.
If it said "one nation under mick" would you still feign offense?
Read the decision in the california case as a reinforcement to the constitution and this supposed separation issue you guys love to use.

My Mr. Mick,
The left usually refers to Burma as Myanmar, thus recognizing the dictatorship. That was my point. . . . As to “separation of church and state” where is that in the foundation of our society? Is is not in the Constitution. It is not in the intent of the founding fathers. Quite the contrary. The phrase so used by the left, comes from a private letter Jefferson wrote, and has been appropriated form its original context.

The issue represents a larger principal: he who provides the funding makes the rules!

The outrage of taxpayers against Ward Churchill for advocating the deaths of those who pay his salary is an example. They recognize a difference between "freedom of speech" and subsidized speech and do not desire to be told they are evil by individuals or organizations they fund. It is of course different for private organizations with voluntary donation funding - I can take my money elsewhere when I disagree. If the Boulder students don't like the environment provided by taxpayers, they can get their collective butts to a private school where their money is the controlling factor.

Important analogy for "universal" health care here - my money involved in it means I will have a say in what is funded - just as every other taxpayer will. Want to irresponsibly reproduce and pop out 10 or 12 crumb crunchers? Not on my dime, get your own damn insurance and pay for your own irresponsible behavior!

The right loves to invent facts and then use them as a club. "The left is ignoring Burma"? Maybe you should take a look at The Nation or Huffington Post before you throw that particular handful of your excrement.

The reason Boulder students "could not bear to hear" (nice coloring there) the pledge with "under God" in it is that those two words violate the separation of church and state at the foundation of our society. If some twit convinced the government to add, "And bless poor Britney with more millions" to the pledge, would it be our patriotic duty to recite every word?

Witless drivel.

I second what Gene said. Oh my, now the liberals will call me a sheelple.

Very well written Ms Kafer - this one's getting framed on my wall.

"Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words... in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, upholding voluntary recitation of the pledge"

NOT!!

The Supreme Court kicked out Newdow's case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

He is now representing other atheist parents to bring the same suit.

Ms. Kafer,
The left loves to suppress opposition thought and speech, from their fascination with Che Guevara to their inability to say the word Burma, to who knows what with Hillary tomorrow. Thank you for the excellently written letter.

POST A COMMENT

• Is strict enforcement of pot laws worth it?
• Stripping down the price of health care
• GUEST COLUMN/Override SCHIP veto? No: Submit legislation that aids needy only
• GUEST COLUMN/Override SCHIP veto? Yes: President ignores moral, fiscal arguments
• History museum belongs in Civic Center
• Denver's rec center system is broken; bigger and fewer would be better
• Democrats still blocking earmark reform
• The system failed Neveah Gallegos