Welcome to UC Berkley, CA Anti-USA

[sbp]

http://www.calpatriot.org/issueupdate/911.html

The "Star Spangled Banner" is too patriotic, divisive and political, so organizers of UC Berkeley's day-long tribute to the victims and heroes of 9-11 are excluding it. "God Bless America" is doubly excluded. Not only is it patriotic, but it also mentions God, something else that is taboo next Wednesday.

The Sept. 11 Day of Remembrance, sponsored by the Chancellor's office, the student body government and the Graduate Assembly, will also feature student leaders distributing white ribbons, instead of the red, white and blue ones they had originally planned.

"We thought that may be just too political, too patriotic," said Hazel Wong, chief organizer for the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC). "We didn't want anything too centered on nationalism-anything that is 'Go U.S.A.'"

Wong said the event organizers are "trying to steer away" from anything political, and that, she said, includes singing the National Anthem and displaying the red, white, and blue. She said they don't want politics disrupting mourning and grieving.

"To hold a Sept. 11 memorial service devoid of patriotism is counterintuitive," said Mark Engberg, a UC Berkeley freshman. "Holding a service without patriotism is like holding a presidential debate without mentioning politics. It doesn't work."

Jessica Quindel, president of the Graduate Assembly, a key player in the planning, said the day's events are about more than just grieving. She said the day is, in fact, about politics. And it's not just about Sept. 11, but also the aftermath, including President Bush's response to the terrorist attacks.

"We are trying to stay away from supporting Bush," Quindel said. "We don't want to isolate people on this campus who disagree with the reaction to Sept. 11."

Quindel, a self avowed hater of the American Flag, the federal government, and the "Star Spangled Banner," said she is still patriotic. "It depends on your definition of patriotism. Everyone has a different definition," she said.

Patriotic songs may exclude and offend people, Quindel said, "because there are so many people who don't agree with the songs." "God Bless America" is "very exclusive" because it mentions God, she said. Though plans call for four university music and song groups to perform at an evening vigil, not a single patriotic song will be sung, at the behest of organizers. Instead, songs of remembrance will be offered up.

Also, to prevent the exclusion of those who don't believe in the American Flag, there will be no tribute to the flag. "The flag has become a symbol of U.S. aggression towards other countries. It seems hostile," Quindel said.

Quindel will be one of two people selecting speakers for short speeches by students during a noontime event on Memorial Glade. Students must pre-register indicating the topic of the comments they wish to make-classifying them into categories of mourning, religious and political.

That system doesn't wash with Robb McFadden, director of the California College Republicans. "If Quindel and her Marxist comrades are selecting the speakers, I think there are serious violations of fundamental fairness," he said. "How can we expect freedom of speech to be filtered through such a radical political ideologue?"

Scheduled speakers at the Memorial Glade assembly include Chancellor Robert Berdahl, ASUC President Jesse Gabriel, and Quindel. They will likely speak, according to Wong, about peace.

Those who aren't selected to speak by Quindel and her undergraduate counterpart, Gabriel, will have an opportunity to speak at an open microphone assembly in the evening. But if last year's open microphone assembly on the night the attacks occurred is any guide, there will likely not be an opportunity for patriotic speech Wednesday. At last Sept. 11's vigil, members of the Berkeley College Republicans were shouted down while speaking of patriotism.

The primary planner for Chancellor Berdahl, Colleen Rovetti, director of university events and ceremonies, said she did not know avoiding patriotism was an overriding objective of the student planners. She echoed remarks by other organizers stressing their intent to make the event a memorial and not a protest.

Gabriel said organizers aim to "separate political beliefs from mourning." "Singing 'God Bless America' may prompt people to shout it down," he said.

Similar fears of aggression toward the flag prompted Berkeley's fire chief to order American flags removed from fire trucks. City leaders worried protesters would attack the flag and comprise firefighters' ability to do their job. After national outcry, the flags were returned to the fire trucks.

Members of the Berkeley College Republicans attended the student senate meeting last night to urge their elected leaders to alter the plans for the Sept. 11 memorial to include patriotic themes.

"If we leave patriotism and religion out of this event, we'd be reducing the memorial to a bunch of anti-American whining, said Republican ASUC Senator Paul LaFata. "Patriotism has a place on this campus, and by excluding it, the ASUC has done exactly what they wanted to avoid. They have offended students."

The Republicans were countered by those supporting the decision of the event organizers. The decision's proponents argued that patriotism leads to nationalism. They also said patriotism would exclude students who are not American citizens.

Quindel said it would be inappropriate for the university to endorse patriotic themes, and urged students to express their views at the open microphone sessions.

[Blitz]

:pfft:rediculous...

[CynJon]

Originally posted by sbp
http://www.calpatriot.org/issueupdate/911.html

The "Star Spangled Banner" is too patriotic, divisive and political, so organizers of UC Berkeley's day-long tribute to the victims and heroes of 9-11 are excluding it. "God Bless America" is doubly excluded. Not only is it patriotic, but it also mentions God, something else that is taboo next Wednesday.




Nothing I hate more than people who are too patriotic...:hmm:




Aren't these people supposed to be out hugging trees instead of flocking together, like the salmon of Capestrano?

[gear02]

Liberal schools tend to be very politcally correct. They want to make sure anything they do doesn't offend people or alienate them.

I went to a liberal school and we were incredibly PC. Calling someone gay in jest was a no-no.

However, don't you guys think there's a limit to patriotism? I mean there's a difference between being proud of being an American and extremistism, something along the lines of McCarthy where anything that's against public opinion is regarded as anti-American and traitorus.

[DankNstickY]

Originally posted by CynJon
...like the salmon of Capestrano?

hehe... :heh:

dumb n dumber?

[hapoo]

Originally posted by CynJon
Aren't these people supposed to be out hugging trees instead of flocking together, like the salmon of Capestrano?



:hmm: I don't know CynJon, the French are *******s.

[brain]

Originally posted by hapoo




:hmm: I don't know CynJon, the French are *******s.

But you are speaking the truth. How is that wrong? Damn PC-ness.

[jase71]

Originally posted by gear02

However, don't you guys think there's a limit to patriotism? I mean there's a difference between being proud of being an American and extremistism, something along the lines of McCarthy where anything that's against public opinion is regarded as anti-American and traitorus.

That was probably their original goal... to have a memorial ceremony, rather than a flag rally. It IS possible to mourn victims of a terrorist attack without turning it into a "we're better than the towelheads" party.

But the attack on the WTC was an attack on the US even more than an attack on the individual victims. The terrorists hit the WTC not to kill the individuals inside, but because it was a symbol of America, and full of Americans.

I don't have a problem with pro-US songs at memorials, both because of the nature of the attack, and because it gives survivors some solidarity, and a little closure regarding the cause of the attack. It gives them a sense of place, and at least a reason for the violence. However painful, that's easier to deal with than random violence.

I think the school was just trying to keep this from turning into an "Us vs. Them" rally. They wanted the focus on the victims, rather than on the politics. Unfortunately, they handled it badly, and people were only too eager to point out the mistakes in a cruel fashion.

[Merlin]

I can understand attempting to keep politics out of a menorial service as it distracts from the spiritual nature of a memorial. What I have aproblem with is every attempt to keep religon out. Let's face it, the vast majority of people on this planet believe in some sort of afterlife. And not to mention this dishonors their memory. If it were a memorial for someone close to me and nobody acknowledged that they're now in heaven, or at least in a better place, I would not only be pissed but very offended.

Like it or not religon and death are both subjects that are highly intertwined. To deny this is to deny both the reality of the situation as well as their beliefs.

[Cantacuzene]

Merlin, no one stopping them from praying. If you are religious, then pray your heart out. If you turn it into some religious rally you are alienating all the non-religious people from attending. I can see it both ways, I think they had the right idea, but handled it bad.

[mcs328]

Gee...wasn't this the same state that voted against going to War against whoever was responsible for the attacks in the first place. What the hell is wrong with the ppl over there?? Something in the water?

[InfiniteNothing]

I think that they are trying to avoid an incedent where someone who is antiflag, antianthem, antireligeon and antibla bla bla starts yelling over the megaphone "you suck" Theres nothing like a "you suck" to end a perfectly solemn mourning of the dead. Since this is at crazy berkly, this is to be anticipated.
There is a time and a place for political correctness and this is one of those times.
ALSO, I think it's hard to realise that demographics are a bit different down there. For example they are more likely to not belive in god, or other stuff that is less common where you may be. Including stuff like that can drive away a bigger %of people you might think.

[sbp]

sob's backtracked real fast: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/living/education/4015313.htm

Its surprising the wackos there aren't having a memorial ceremony for the terrorists. :dodgy:

gear: Yes, and isn't there a limit to extremistism in the other direction?

Very sad that there are idiots out there who are so rude and would harass those observing a solemn event. :2far:

[gear02]

See, told ya all these people cared about was making everyone happy and not offending anyone. These student government people don't really have any ideals anyway.

I really hate student government, but that's another thread entirely...

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by gear02

I really hate student government, but that's another thread entirely...

On that note...

Our SGA Student Body President was arrested the other night for disorderly conduct on campus (dry campus, he was wasted after his frat's party) and non-violently resisting arrest. They had his heinous mug shot all over the newspapers. Funny stuff.

[Nanotech9]

so theyr'e afraid of offending a few foreign students or something? what about offending all the amreicans by NOT being patriotic? all its doing is causing more division between americans.

something i dont understand...

someone can be offended about something religious or patriotic being associated with an event or something, and they get it removed...

but, if the same amount of people are offended by the LACK of religious or patriotic "content" they just get brushed off and ignored.

how is that so? i think in this sue-happy world, where people sue for all teh wrong reasons, we need to take advantage of it and start sueing for all teh RIGHT reasons.

also, those attacks were against AMERICA, and CHRISTIANITY (they do hate the christian religion). So, it is a VERY political and religious based event... all these people that "might get offended by patriotism" are probably NOT citizens, and are GUESTS in our country, and should shut the f**k up when americans feel the need to be patriotic. If they ARE citizens and are getting offended by patriotism, they need to be freakin deported or something.

when americans are in foreign countries, and they have patriotic events, they dont give a flying fu*k if theres a foreigner around that gets offended.... afterall, who are we to get offended about them being patriotic about their own country? Believe me, i know, i lived in spain for 10 years.

[Showtime]

I know a few people that went to Berkeley. Went up to visit a couple of times and its a pretty cool campus. The vibe is different than other colleges. They strive to be overtly p.c. I get the feeling they want to show how different they are from everyone else.

My friend made the mistake of making a generalization about woman his freshman year and got slammed by half the class. Many students gain a totally different perspective on life while there. I don't feel "enlightenment" happens for everyone while learning there. I think kids are pressured to feel "pc" like everyone else. In some cases this is good, but in some it just makes them want to do something, anything to raise the bar. I wonder what views that freshman will have on this in 3 years.

IMHO, I don't have a problem with them excluding something with God in it. I do have a problem with them getting an education at a UC that is partly paid for by our government/taxes. Some of these kids don't realize the amount of sacrifice it took to have a free learning environment. Freedom is expensive.

Some think because they are smart enough to make to an elite college that they have better insight as to what is right. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

-jel:halo:

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Nanotech9
so theyr'e afraid of offending a few foreign students or something? what about offending all the amreicans by NOT being patriotic? all its doing is causing more division between americans.

something i dont understand...

someone can be offended about something religious or patriotic being associated with an event or something, and they get it removed...

but, if the same amount of people are offended by the LACK of religious or patriotic "content" they just get brushed off and ignored.

how is that so? i think in this sue-happy world, where people sue for all teh wrong reasons, we need to take advantage of it and start sueing for all teh RIGHT reasons.

also, those attacks were against AMERICA, and CHRISTIANITY (they do hate the christian religion). So, it is a VERY political and religious based event... all these people that "might get offended by patriotism" are probably NOT citizens, and are GUESTS in our country, and should shut the f**k up when americans feel the need to be patriotic. If they ARE citizens and are getting offended by patriotism, they need to be freakin deported or something.

when americans are in foreign countries, and they have patriotic events, they dont give a flying fu*k if theres a foreigner around that gets offended.... afterall, who are we to get offended about them being patriotic about their own country? Believe me, i know, i lived in spain for 10 years.

You throw out generalities so fast you almost sound like you know what you are talking about. Sweeping statemets like "we're only offending forigners" is just plain stupid. There are many patriotic Americans who are antiflag, antianthem, antireligeous, anti bla bla bla bla, and they have cogent rational arguments to defend them. To say they are wrong without listening to them is just plain close minded.
Also, I don't think many people are VERY offended by leaving out some of the patriotism. And those who are offended are usualy tolerant enough to not care enough to do something. And I certainly can't see a Jesus Freak on the megaphone yelling "you suck" because they don't have any songs with the word God in them. They are playing it safe to protect those who are in mourning.

[Nanotech9]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

Also, I don't think many people are VERY offended by leaving out some of the patriotism. And those who are offended are usualy tolerant enough to not care enough to do something. And I certainly can't see a Jesus Freak on the megaphone yelling "you suck" because they don't have any songs with the word God in them. They are playing it safe to protect those who are in mourning.

then its a fukin shame that people arent offended by the lack of patritoism.

also, shame on those that ARE offended because of the lack of patritoism but dont care enough to make a difference.

and yeah, i'm offended by the jeasus freak comment, but i understand youre just using it as an example.

like i said, it may be one thing to remove religion from it, but its something else - a very bad thing to remove patritoism. Its a shame when you cant be patriotic in your own country dont you think?

hell, i think even old Pennyp. would be offended by what berkly is doing, and he was about as liberal as they come around these parts. Its in threads like this that i miss his opinions and comments... I have a hard time voicing what i'm feeling. I wonder if LPM is reading this. He usually finds a way to say exactly what i'm thinking and cant word right.

[InfiniteNothing]

Yeah, thats true. It seems that either way sucks.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by Nanotech9
and yeah, i'm offended by the jeasus freak comment, but i understand youre just using it as an example.[\b\[\quote]

Hey, I'm a "Jesus Freak" and damn proud of it!!! :D

[quote][b]like i said, it may be one thing to remove religion from it, but its something else - a very bad thing to remove patritoism. Its a shame when you cant be patriotic in your own country dont you think?

I agree to a certain extent. It's one thing to remove God because "sensitib" people cringe at the very word. But to remove patriotism is uncalled for. We ARE in America and if people don't like it, they are free to move to other countries (I'm not talking about those who disagree with certain policies or actions, but those who constantly complain that America is totally corrupt, etc. etc. Go to other countries and look at THIER policies then come back and talk to me.) . The fact of the matter is that many people come here to ESCAPE other countries or to benefit from the freedoms that we do have (shoot, all of my great-grandparents came over here either legally or illegally and I'm hella grateful. What kind of life would I have had in Mexico?). So I don't understand why these people feel they have "right" to not have a patriotic memorial.

Where are the people in the school who WANT to be patriotic? Why aren't they speaking out? And if they feel they can't, there is something VERY wrong.

What I don't understand is why they are so focused on "exclusiveness", meaning, they are so sensitive not to "exclude" anyone. It seems to me that their goal is tolerance, right? You would think that they would rather be "inclusive" and have a little something for "everyone". Sharing and teaching people about other races, religions, opinions and cultures would serve their purpose better, IMO.

What they are doing now is just babying people, allowing them to remain stagnant, stroking thier being intolerant with anything that makes them uncomfortable and allowing them to stay ignorant. Grow up people!!!!

[latingirl]

aww heck...double post. :D

[Burzhui]

****ing liberals:angry:

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by latingirl


I agree to a certain extent. It's one thing to remove God because "sensitib" people cringe at the very word. But to remove patriotism is uncalled for. We ARE in America and if people don't like it, they are free to move to other countries (I'm not talking about those who disagree with certain policies or actions, but those who constantly complain that America is totally corrupt, etc. etc. Go to other countries and look at THIER policies then come back and talk to me.) . The fact of the matter is that many people come here to ESCAPE other countries or to benefit from the freedoms that we do have (shoot, all of my great-grandparents came over here either legally or illegally and I'm hella grateful. What kind of life would I have had in Mexico?). So I don't understand why these people feel they have "right" to not have a patriotic memorial.

Where are the people in the school who WANT to be patriotic? Why aren't they speaking out? And if they feel they can't, there is something VERY wrong.

What I don't understand is why they are so focused on "exclusiveness", meaning, they are so sensitive not to "exclude" anyone. It seems to me that their goal is tolerance, right? You would think that they would rather be "inclusive" and have a little something for "everyone". Sharing and teaching people about other races, religions, opinions and cultures would serve their purpose better, IMO.

What they are doing now is just babying people, allowing them to remain stagnant, stroking thier being intolerant with anything that makes them uncomfortable and allowing them to stay ignorant. Grow up people!!!!
I'm not quite sure what exactly your arguing. Are you arguing that people are too sensitive? I think you are wrong in this case. No one is being too sensitive. Berkley admins are being smart; the tree huggers are just a bit overeager to use their 1st amendment to complain about specific policies (flag, song, bla).
You also said "Where are the people who want to be patriotic" They realise it's best not to make a big deal out of this.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by sbp
"To hold a Sept. 11 memorial service devoid of patriotism is counterintuitive," said Mark Engberg, a UC Berkeley freshman. "Holding a service without patriotism is like holding a presidential debate without mentioning politics. It doesn't work."



Ha! Wait'll Berkley has him for four years. I wonder if he'll change his tune. I don't want him to change it... but I just wonder.


While I'm posting...

I've got two words for the PC-freaks in Berkley, "Get over it."

The catch-22 in this whole mess is that political correctness stems from prosperity. And people obsessed with political correctness seem to be the ones touting how "bad" the situations are... when they don't seem to realize that the reason they are afforded the opportunity to be so (unbelievably and obnoxiously) politically correct is because things are so good that they don't have the legitimate gripes like others in the world do.


Give political correctness a shot in Afghanistan or the Philippines. :bigmouth:

"You mean I can't say that, why? Because you don't want me to offend who? Who cares!? I need money for rice!"

They've got legit gripes.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to express displeasure. But this whole business of "not offending someone" is outrageous. Open your mouth and you're going to offend SOMEONE. Just another lowest-common-denominator scheme embraced by the (dare I say it) ultra-liberal folk.

If "an eye-for-an-eye leaves the world blind," then "political correctness leaves the world mute."

I don't believe in the "leaves the world blind" bit, but if you buy into one of those, then you've gotta buy into the other one.



Dave.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by Dave_7

I've got two words for the PC-freaks in Berkley, "Get over it."

The catch-22 in this whole mess is that political correctness stems from prosperity. And people obsessed with political correctness seem to be the ones touting how "bad" the situations are... when they don't seem to realize that the reason they are afforded the opportunity to be so (unbelievably and obnoxiously) politically correct is because things are so good that they don't have the legitimate gripes like others in the world do.


Give political correctness a shot in Afghanistan or the Philippines. :bigmouth:

"You mean I can't say that, why? Because you don't want me to offend who? Who cares!? I need money for rice!"

They've got legit gripes.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to express displeasure. But this whole business of "not offending someone" is outrageous. Open your mouth and you're going to offend SOMEONE. Just another lowest-common-denominator scheme embraced by the (dare I say it) ultra-liberal folk.

If "an eye-for-an-eye leaves the world blind," then "political correctness leaves the world mute."

I don't believe in the "leaves the world blind" bit, but if you buy into one of those, then you've gotta buy into the other one.



Dave.

I love this! I totally agree. I esp. love the statement that pc-ness leave the world mute.

Although, I didn't understand the "leaves the world blind" statement.

LG

[Jenny]

latingirl, the eye for an eye makes the world blind means, if someone pokes your eye out and you poke theirs out in return, and everyone did that, the whole world will be blind. :)

[jase71]

I think it's more than a little ironic that we're seeing people and groups attacked now for attempting to set up memorial services in the way they choose. Apparently, there's now a quota on the number of the number of flags you display, the number and type of songs you need to sing, and the message you need to send.

In the name of "freedom", we dictate through peer pressure what the proper procedures are for remembering the victims of a terrorist attack.

There's a new kind of PC out there, competing with the old PC. Patriotic Correctness appears to be the new groupthink of choice.

Don't you dare hold a memorial service without making it a political statement! You can't mourn the dead without bringing foreign policy into it! The fact that they were Americans matters more than that they were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and spouses!

I don't buy it. It scares me to see people being browbeaten into displays of the proper patriotism. That's every bit as wrong as the political correctness movement, and perhaps even more dangerous.

I have no problem with flags and patriotic songs at memorial services, as long as it's the wish of the organizers. Patriotism should be a voluntary thing, not something you feel necessary to display to keep from being attacked. If the College Republicans want a different sort of service, they're perfectly free to organize their own.

Until the 1st Amendment is recinded, the organizers have the right to plan the memorial however they choose. Those who dislike it have two options, and only two options. Don't attend, or repeal the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers didn't fight a revolution so we could create a country where only Patriotically Correct public gatherings are acceptable.

An important part of freedom is recognizing that you might not like everything you hear. And living with it.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

I'm not quite sure what exactly your arguing. Are you arguing that people are too sensitive? I think you are wrong in this case. No one is being too sensitive. Berkley admins are being smart; the tree huggers are just a bit overeager to use their 1st amendment to complain about specific policies (flag, song, bla).
You also said "Where are the people who want to be patriotic" They realise it's best not to make a big deal out of this.

I am arguing that people are too sensitive. Again, I think the statement that "PC-ness leaves the world mute" makes my case.

Can you imagine if a law was passed that we cannot talk about religion or cultures or give opinions in public places because we are trying to be sensitive to not offending people?? Where will it stop. As stated above, there will ALWAYS be someone who is offended. It seems to me that the "offended" have too much control. I think that its more reasonable to take an "inclusive" attitude and teach others (be "intolerant" to ignorance because ignorance breeds intolerance/racism) than take an "exclusive" attitude and cater or baby those who are "sensitive" to what makes them uncomfortable.

As long as people aren't cursing, being overtly sexual (keeping it PG), or putting down others...but merely stating thier point of view or representing what they believe...they should be able to participate in public meetings like this (I'm speaking generally). There is absolutely no reason to stifle anyone.

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
I think it's more than a little ironic that we're seeing people and groups attacked now for attempting to set up memorial services in the way they choose. Apparently, there's now a quota on the number of the number of flags you display, the number and type of songs you need to sing, and the message you need to send.I think its more than ironic seeing people and groups attacked because they would be patriotic.


In the name of "freedom", we dictate through peer pressure what the proper procedures are for remembering the victims of a terrorist attack.

There's a new kind of PC out there, competing with the old PC. Patriotic Correctness appears to be the new groupthink of choice.:2far: Nice try to redefine politically correctness but being PC is a hallmark of the left.


Don't you dare hold a memorial service without making it a political statement! You can't mourn the dead without bringing foreign policy into it! The fact that they were Americans matters more than that they were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and spouses!Don't you dare have an imperialistic American flag in Berkeley!


I don't buy it. It scares me to see people being browbeaten into displays of the proper patriotism. That's every bit as wrong as the political correctness movement, and perhaps even more dangerous.It scares me to see people browbeaten into not being able to express appreciation for this country.


I have no problem with flags and patriotic songs at memorial services, as long as it's the wish of the organizers. Patriotism should be a voluntary thing, not something you feel necessary to display to keep from being attacked. If the College Republicans want a different sort of service, they're perfectly free to organize their own.You may not have a problem with flags and patriotic songs but these slapnuts do.

The point has been totally missed. :disa: The people who would be attacked and shouted down are those who wish to be patriotic.


Until the 1st Amendment is recinded, the organizers have the right to plan the memorial however they choose. Those who dislike it have two options, and only two options. Don't attend, or repeal the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers didn't fight a revolution so we could create a country where only Patriotically Correct public gatherings are acceptable.In Berkeley, CA only political correct public gatherings are acceptable.


An important part of freedom is recognizing that you might not like everything you hear. And living with it. Something the radicals at Berkeley need to remember. God forbid someone show love for country.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
I think its more than ironic seeing people and groups attacked because they would be patriotic.

Except the Berkeley folks weren't attacking people. They were trying to organize a memorial they way they wanted it. They weren't telling anyone else how to organize their own memorial.

The type of memorial they were organizing may have been out of the ordinary... but that was their call, wasn't it? They were working on their own memorial service. From reading the article, they weren't trying to convince another group to change its memorial.

Were the Berkeley folks trying to persuade another group to change it's memorial, or were they organizing their own the way they wanted it? There's a very important distinction there.



:2far: Nice try to redefine politically correctness but being PC is a hallmark of the left.

Who's redefining? It's a seperate phenomenon. A mirror image to political correctness, in a sense.

And it's an interesting one. Those who oppose political correctness in name are apparently quite willing to resort to the same tactics when the subject changes.

Look at the way people have been attacked, on both sides of the political spectrum, for voicing opinions outside of the "norm". Falwell, Maher, and others... It wasn't that they weren't politically correct... they just weren't Patriotically correct. They didn't voice the "right" opinion, that America was blameless. And they were lambasted for it. One of them is from the left, and one is from the right.



It scares me to see people browbeaten into not being able to express appreciation for this country.

Who's being forbidden to express appreciation for their country? The college Republicans are perfectly free to hold their own memorial service, by their own standards, using their own material. They're being forbidden nothing except to take over someone else's service.

If you feel that the Berkeley rally is restricting the right of expression of the College Republicans, would you feel that the Berkeley liberals have the right to dictate the material of a College Republican memorial if the tables were turned?

The organizers of the memorial have no responsibility to provide a platform for the College Republicans viewpoints any more than the College Republicans are required to provide a platform for the liberals. Or than GotApex is required to publish viewpoints that counter the views of the site owners.

Or can you explain to me how not being able to take over someone else's memorial service is being "browbeaten"?



You may not have a problem with flags and patriotic songs but these slapnuts do.

And that's their right under the 1st Amendment. Their opinion is no less valuable just because you disagree with it.

It's just not the patriotically correct opinion, is it?



The point has been totally missed. :disa: The people who would be attacked and shouted down are those who wish to be patriotic.

Why would people who want to attend a patriotic memorial service attend one that's expressly NOT patriotic? Aren't there more than enough patriotic memorial services to attend? Aren't they free to organize their own?

If I, as a liberal, were to attend the Republican National Convention, do I have a right to podium time in front of the audience to tell everyone what wonderful people liberals are? Am I free to stand in the audience and chant pro-liberal slogans and wave liberal placards? Or, am I in the wrong venue for such behavior, and perhaps I should move my butt (or have it moved for me, forcefully) over to the Democratic National Convention?

Just like the Republicans have the right to control the content, tone, and material of the Republican National Convention, the organizers of the Berkeley memorial service have the right to control the content, tone, and material of their service.

And just because one group disapproves of the content at another's rally doesn't give them the right to change it.



In Berkeley, CA only political correct public gatherings are acceptable.

Apparently, that's not the case anymore, given the pressure that this one is under to be patriotically correct.



Something the radicals at Berkeley need to remember. God forbid someone show love for country.

God forbid you be REQUIRED to show love for your country as a prerequisite to mouring the loss of the people in the WTC.

God forbid you be REQUIRED to show the proper patriotism to avoid being ridiculed and harassed during a public gathering.

God forbid you should have a contrary opinion to the majority.

God forbid you should not show proper respect for the Party and the State.

Patriotism should be voluntary. Forced Patriotism is servitude, and we've got fine examples in the old Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to see what that results in.

America was founded partly as a place to allow for a difference of opinion, where all may speak their mind freely, and where people can have opposing political viewpoints without fear of retaliation.

In all our patriotism, let's not forget that.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by jase71
I have no problem with flags and patriotic songs at memorial services, as long as it's the wish of the organizers. Patriotism should be a voluntary thing, not something you feel necessary to display to keep from being attacked. If the College Republicans want a different sort of service, they're perfectly free to organize their own.

Until the 1st Amendment is recinded, the organizers have the right to plan the memorial however they choose. Those who dislike it have two options, and only two options. Don't attend, or repeal the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers didn't fight a revolution so we could create a country where only Patriotically Correct public gatherings are acceptable.

An important part of freedom is recognizing that you might not like everything you hear. And living with it.

You know, I have to agree with these statements.

I pose the question again...where are those at Berkley who are in opposition to not having a "traditionally" patriotic memorial service. It's thier school...they pay thier tuition too (or its at least paid for in thier name)...they need to make as much noise AND/OR be allowed to have thier OWN service at another part of the campus where they can remember they way they choose.

But at the same time, we have to ask that do students with conservative views feel comfortable to express THIER views. From what I understand, many conservative students at Berkley don't feel comfortable expressing thier views in anything they are going to turn in for a grade for fear that thier liberal teachers are going to penalize them and ultimatately bring thier grade point average down for it.

[sbp]

"At last Sept. 11's vigil, members of the Berkeley College Republicans were shouted down while speaking of patriotism." Hmm thats not being stifled is it? Business as usual there.

For a place that is supposed to be so open for various ideas, its rather humorous and sad to see the imposition of measures so these ideas might not offend. So much for tolerance.

The focus needs to be on those who can't control themselves when others express differing views. Let us not blame those who wish to express dissenting views. The real probem are those who would be compelled to rip a flag off a firetruck. Sitting there pandering to such folks and being afraid of their actions is not wise. Being open to what others thinks comes with maturity. Its time for some there to learn that valuable lesson.

[jujubees]

Originally posted by latingirl
I pose the question again...where are those at Berkley who are in opposition to not having a "traditionally" patriotic memorial service. It's thier school...they pay thier tuition too (or its at least paid for in thier name)...they need to make as much noise AND/OR be allowed to have thier OWN service at another part of the campus where they can remember they way they choose.
All of the "action" groups that protest everything under the sun kinda help the university live up to its reputation. The Berkeley College Republicans always have a table or booth at every event, but the most proactive I've ever seen them is when they gave me a keychain.

At Berkeley, I think the Republicans learn to just shake their heads at the hubbub that the overbearing left likes to create, and carry on. Yes, it's our school, and yes, we're paying the tuition, but we don't need to be on the 6 o-clock news to affirm that.