Coney Island Principal Bans Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless The USA”

I’m not sure if you can blame this one on liberalism: the principal in question is a Jehovah’s Witness, and their religion doesn’t allow them to stand and salute any flag. I’d still bet that she is an Obama voter. She’s had issues with race baiting previously

(NY Post) A controversial Coney Island principal has pulled the plug on patriotism.

Her refusal to let students sing “God Bless the USA” at their graduation has sparked fireworks at a school filled with proud immigrants.

Greta Hawkins, principal of PS 90, the Edna Cohen School, won’t allow kindergartners to belt out the beloved Lee Greenwood ballad, also known as “Proud to be an American,” at their moving-up ceremony.

When Hawkins walked in on rehersal, she shut it down, telling them to drop the song. Why?

“We don’t want to offend other cultures,” they quoted her as explaining.

The school, which features immigrants from Pakistan, Mexico, and Ecuador, among others, has used the song in previous years, with no problems. The parents love it.

Department of Education spokeswoman Jessica Scaperotti gave The Post an explanation staffers said they never heard — that Hawkins found the lyrics “too grown up” for 5-year-olds.

Uh huh.

But Justin Bieber’s flirty song about teen romance, “Baby,” was deemed a fine selection for the show. Hawkins had no problem with 5-year-olds singing lines such as, “Are we an item? Girl, quit playing.”

The school says the Pledge of Allegiance and sings America the Beautiful each morning. Why, yes, Hawkins has tried to shut those down, too. Liberalism or being a Jehovah’s Witness, some people seem to always ruin things for others because they are “offended.”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Coney Island Principal Bans Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless The USA””

  1. Gumball_Brains says:

    geeez. Guess who’s career just got cut short.

  2. Trish says:

    Oh how I hate liberals…
    The current crop of liberals are so anti-freedom it’s not funny.
    They are so transparent in their hatred of this country. They are so desperate to become Europe and see our country fall into ruin.
    Oh how I hate liberals, and progressives too.

  3. No, no, see, they’re not anti-liberty, they just believe in limited liberty. As long as it is something they believe in, its all good. If they are against it, well, then, we have to consider the “common good”.

  4. Trish says:

    Yeah, I hear ya. I think I will go out and grab a 32 oz soda…to kill myself.
    Funny thing- this “soda summit” that the mayors are planning, our own esteemed Mayor Nutter was supporting a move to keep the city bars open later than 2 AM. So- you can’t have a Big Gulp, but you can stay out drinking/getting drunk till the wee hours…which I am not against mind you. It’s just the HYPOCRISY of these people! Matter of fact- how about this double standard?

  5. the fly says:

    I’m wondering if there isn’t more to it. Sounds weirdly one-sided. If it is true as stated, then it’s an interesting dicotomy, if a doctor can refuse medical procedures on religious gounds then probably a principal can refuse songs on religious gounds.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    …….if a doctor can refuse medical procedures on religious gounds then probably a principal can refuse songs on religious gounds.

    There is a dichotomy only if one does not understand the First Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment.

    In the case of the doctor, the government is telling the doctor he must do something that is against his moral and religious beliefs. The government is prohibited from demanding the doctor ignore his religious beliefs. The government is also prohibited from forcing the doctor to do the procedure on the basis of “involuntary servitude.”

    In the case of the principal, she is acting as the government and has no right to impose her religious beliefs on others. She cannot demand that others follow her religious beliefs.

    There is no dichotomy here. In both cases the government is overreaching and violating the First Amendment.

  7. Gumball_Brains says:

    But it is an interesting thought exercise. If the courts have ruled that a school holding moments of silence and/or prayers before a school function (like a football game or graduation ceremony) is “gov’t mandating a religion”, and this principal feels that these songs, sung by a school-based choir and teacher are forcing an infringement upon her religion…. does she have a standing as has lately been deemed by these recent court cases?

    Are we going to come to a point where we are a religiously-free to not-being-allowed to practice our non-religion? (gov’t official: “you may practice any religion you wish, only as long as it contains no religion”)

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Courts have addressed mentioning “God” or other religious entities in situations just like this and have found no violation of the First Amendment as long as the song does not proselytize or advocate the superiority of one one religion over another, there is no conflict.

    For example, schools may sing Christmas songs that have the words “God,” “Christ,” etc in them as long as they are not the focus of the total presentation. In other words, you can’t have a school approved and sponsored “Night of Christian Songs.” In another case, Appeals Courts totally rejected the idea that singing, or having kids sing “God Bless America” was an infringement of the First Amendment either.

  9. Gumball_Brains says:

    Then how come we have had case after case where schools were forced to stop any form of quiet time, prayer, display when sued? Even at events which were voluntary, or where people paid to get in?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Then how come we have had case after case where schools were forced to stop any form of quiet time, prayer, display when sued?

    Because it is seen as advocating a religion.

    Even the Ten Commandments has been viewed in two different ways when displayed in public forums. If the Ten Commandments are not a part of a historical overview of something, they are generally interpreted as being against the First Amendment.

    If they are displayed as part of a historical overview of the law, for example, they are legal.

    The context of the display is generally taken into consideration.

    The reason we see so many lawsuits is that schools and public institutions routinely violate the First Amendment in that they take what they believe to be the law. Too many times, it is not. One kid I know was told to write a paper on a “person he admired.” The kid wrote a paper on Christ. The teacher rejected the paper. The school backed the teacher saying it was a “separation of church and state” issue. Despite the Department of Education at the state and federal level telling the school they were wrong, they stuck by their decision. It took a lawsuit to resolve the issue in favor of the kid and his parents.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4449 access attempts in the last 7 days.