San Francisco – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remains mute over banning all use of language in official documents.
“We see this as a victory” said Ms. Todavía Rojo of the ACLU, “a mute response is a strong indication the Court has accepted the premise of our lawsuit and will no longer be employing words in its decisions”
The ACLU has long advocated the banning of all religion expression from official documents and government functions as the best way to implement Constitutionally mandated religious neutrality. Last year the ACLU joined representatives from several exotic ethnic groups to seek a similar ban on the use of language.
“The official use of English cannot be considered language neutral. It is oppressive to all non-English speakers. We have simply taken the next step to protect the rights of minorities in America by asking that all official use of language be banned.” claimed Ms. Royo.
U.S. Attorney General Hugh Rodham dismissed the ACLU's optimism. “The Court's silence means nothing. The ACLU is jumping the gun. Give the Court time to deliberate; they have only had 15 minutes.”
© Greg Schiller, 2007
Author: Greg Schiller
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 36
*&^(%*%$
;>) Thanks, Greg!
Thanks Priscilla and vickey.
And Kenna - "Ugh" is banned. You will never see it in a government document. But then you will never see anything in a government document.
Imagine how brief city council meetings will be!!
If I were going to ban a language, Russian would be at the top of my list (because of that nasty Putin), followed by all the Arab languages that one can't speak at all.
And Ruth, the founding fathers wanted only to protect our right to worship as we please. It was not their intent to drive every mention of the Christian religion off the fact of the earth while allowing mention of the religions of the minority as is happening today. That is quite clear from research that has already been done.
And, I take offense at Chris's comment — unless he was just being sardonic.
Okay, okay, everything is cool.
Hugh Rodham............hilarious again.
And Greg, would you be complaining about the ban on religious language in government documents if the religion most invading them was one other than yours? You want a theocracy, you could always move to Iran...
Lighten up. Try to appreciate the humor behind the weird logic of banning something to achieve "neutrality".
As for theocracy, our nation survived 175 years without such a ban and from what I can gleam from the history books, never did become a theocracy.
Look at the European model.
Hey, progressives love to point to Europe as the beacon of enlightenment. Look at their relationship between church and state. There people pay taxes to support the churches. No kidding.
We even did that here in several states, well into the late 19th century.
I am not proposing that we become a theocracy like Sweden. Good gosh, who would suggest such a thing!!
What I am saying is to respectfully maintain our history and tradition is not a threat to anyone.
For the record, I am not a Chrisitian. I am an atheist who is trying to employ a little humor to help keep that particular worldview from becoming just another oppressive religion.
It's possible to "get" the humor and not think it's particularly hilarious. The trouble here is that while you are right that language is never neutral, that doesn't mean we should not try to make it a little more neutral and inclusive. Yes, we all construe reality in particular ways--relevant to this case is our tendency to think in in-groups and out-groups and for our language to reflect that. But once we realize that, do we not even try to be fair?
It's not just religion, you know. If you look back at documents from as late as the first half of the 20th century, they will be full of language that assumes the superiority of the white race, and specifically, of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. This was just how people talked, and it was natural that official government documents used the same language. Do we allow that sort of language too, because otherwise we might as well ban all language?
I am not talking about ridiculous things like banning the word "niggardly" or a rewriting of every expression that has black or white in it; and similarly, I do not support excising "Christmas" from every reference or removing crosses from historical seals or the word "God" from documents that traditionally contained it. I am talking about actual statements that clearly assume the superiority of a race or a religion, or of religion over nonreligion.
Sorry to be so serious on a satire article.
Loved it. Trying to tink of something pithy and insightful to say here, but it looks like it's all been said.
Anyway, it'd prbably be banned.
Great post, Greg.
FOOEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!