Pledge! Now!

[Gromnir]

most prominent?

 

HA!

 

he wasn't even at the constitutional convention.

 

and if you wanna start listing stuff, go for it, but we will bury you with washington and jay and hamilton and madison and many many others... and more important, since all we got is drafts o' the amendments, we will buryyou with the ACTIONS o' the fldgeling government... put the FRAMER's words into context of what they did with'em.

 

jefferson were a brilliant man, but he hardly spoke for the majority o' the founders... and he weren't a framer.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

This duel shall be concluded at a later date.

 

Now quit making me late.

[Gromnir]

there is no duel. am not gonna simply throw out 100 quotes to prove you wrong. is a waste of both our efforts. maybe you want a list o' Court cases that you will not fully understand?

 

do yourself a favor and look at the actions of early post bill o' rights Court, Congress and Exec, 'cause a battle o' quotes will prove nothing, and you will still be wrong. am always amazed at how folks put so much stock in jefferson and madison quotes concerning establishment clause, while they happily ignore fact that the Congress that ratifies the Bill o' Rights opened with a prayer, and apportioned monies for christian missionary work into indian territory... and almost 150 years o' subsequent history.

 

*sigh*

 

and please try to get it through your head that jefferson were not a framer. he was not at the Constitutional Convention and he were not part o' the virginia delegation that ratified the bill of rights neither.

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I don't mind duels. I just hate vendettas.

 

Anyhow, you can't deny that Jefferson was an inluential voice in American politics. The term "fringe politician" doesn't do him justice. I have to admit that many of his views were fringe at the time and some are still fringe today. Nevertheless, while he might not be a framer, he was the very least a founding father.

 

My gut instinct has always been to admire Adams more than Jefferson, but that's my right wing side showing. I haven't been in touch with the massive conspiracy for a while, but I assume it's still there and doing quite well. Thank God there isn't a similar left wing conspiracy. One conspiracy is enough.

 

As for the pledge, I have no problem with demanding that folks recite the pledge, but I think it should be reserved for solemn or special occassions. It's not a pledge. It's a ritual carried out so often and in routine circumstances that it's lost all real meaning.

[Gromnir]

never denied founding father status o' jefferson... or his political influence. however, he was, at the time of the constitutional convention, viewed as something of a loose cannon and yeah, a fringe politician... and maybe a bit of a nut too. would never wear more than one suit, and would wear that until it wore out before getting a new one.

 

regardless, he were one guy... just one. his views hardly represented the Framer's intent as a whole.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

to make the Phrase "under God" work one must also add "under Allah, Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Osiris..." you get the point. This would achieve Religious equality to the best of our ablity. But because people don't want to give a speech when they say the pledge just remove the offending phrase...

 

And add "One nation, Killing God,"

[Musopticon?]

One nation. Under Mus.

 

 

...mmm.....

[Ewen Brown]

man, i read that as 'one nation under urs meier'

 

i was about to go on a quest to kill you, good thing i read that again

[alanschu]

Socializing? I don't think school does that. I never went to a private school in my life, and got a damned good education to boot. I certainly wouldn't say I was socialized, as I came out rather atheist despite being obliged to recite the Pledge every day. Which I really don't have a problem with, as I said; on the other hand, none of you should have a problem with allowing "under God" to be replaced by whatever the individual's beliefs happen to be.

 

Schools are one of the primary instituations of socialization. Right up there with family, as that's where kids spend large parts of their day interacting with other people.

 

If you somehow went entirely through school (whether public or private) without being socialized, then that would truly be an accomplishment (and inhuman).

[Musopticon?]

man, i read that as 'one nation under urs meier'

 

i was about to go on a quest to kill you, good thing i read that again

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I have never doubted for a moment that I was right. Not for one moment." "

[Shadowstrider]

1 - Gromnir is right about Jefferson in all regards. He was considered on the outer fringes of politicians.

 

2 - The "Wall" of seperation may not have existed in the original intent (which we really can't debate their intent), or the original wording. However we have come to a point where people believe that is the case, and most accept it.

 

3 - Socialization of young people is one of the main goals of public school.

[alanschu]

And private school!

[Musopticon?]

Learn in the streets! Teach people under trees!

[alanschu]

That would just be changing the location of our school!

[Musopticon?]

Fresh air! Birds!

[Lucius]

Dr. Phil is rumored to be planning a coup d'etat. :ph34r:

 

 

Uncle Phil wants...

YOU!

[Calax]

and his consort is: Oprah!

 

Unfortunatly I don't have any Oprah Manips.

[Colrom]

Folks sometimes say that the pledge isn't aimed at endorsing religion it is just a natural phrasing some folks used without any intent of prejudice.

 

But the history of the pledge makes it clear that the intent is prejudicial. Here is some info I have partially copied and partially paraphrased from a web site on the topic.

 

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge.

 

A reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge.

 

They got nowhere.

 

Then Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on Feb 7, 1954. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow."

 

After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon.

 

Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution on June 8, 1954. It was signed into law on Flag Day, June 14.

 

President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

So the intent of congress and the president is clear and the pledge is clearly unconstitutional - since it seeks to establish religion and possibly even Christian religion as a national dedication.

 

It is against the law.

 

And Christianity doesn't need bully boy help anyway.

[Cantousent]

The history of a movement doesn't necessarily prove anything about the product of the movement. If the nazi party enacted a law prohibiting operating a vehilce while under the effects of alcohol, the law would remain reasonable regardless of the source. There is no better example than my own stance, which is that the pledge not be mandatory. I'm a Catholic and have no problem with the phrase "under God." So, while the movement to remove the phrase or change the pledge might find support among atheists, the end product of the movement, namely removing the phrase, is not necessarily anti-religious.

 

In fact, the words "under God" do not create a state religion, which is the only clear prohibition that I've seen so far. Since God encompasses the idea of divinity, it could just as easily serve as a reference for any other deity.

 

I think many atheists cannot help but approach the issue with overt hostility. That doesn't help their case.

 

Also, I'd like to know how many people in this thread are American citizens. It is not a prerequisite in order to comment on the issue, but I am curious as to how many folks from other countries feel compelled to comment on the pledge as it is spoken in the USA. I'm sure I'll get a few flames for bringing up the issue, but it's a legitimate question. It changes the issue from how Americans regard our constitution and the separation of church and state to the issue of church and state in general. Because, if I'm to listen politely to folks argue against the pledge in my country, I should expect folks from other countries to be equally polite in listening to me. Of course, if an American has strong opinions aboutanother country, he's arrogant. That's probably true. By the same token, a citizen of another country who feels compelled to express strong opinions about my country is open to the very same charge.

[Lucius]

Who has not been polite or refused to listen to you? Why do you automatically assume that people will flame you and call you arrogant? Why are you always on the defensive? Is it because America is so often criticized these days that you begin with a defensive position to counter any possible arguments, perhaps even arguments noone had thought off before you mentioned them yourself ?

 

On a topic note, seen with Danish eyes, even having a pledge in school is ridiculous, let alone having God included within it. (whom most of us doesn't worship). Now feel free to say something about my country, you arrogant bastard. ^_^

[alanschu]

I'm Canadian, and even a borderline athiest, and I don't care about any "under god" statements.

 

Meh.

[Musopticon?]

But under Mus is fine isn't it?

[alanschu]

Isn't that just a synonym for the standard

[Musopticon?]

Well, now that you mention it...

 

I am godlike, aren't I?

[Judge Hades]

On a topic note, seen with Danish eyes, even having a pledge in school is ridiculous, let alone having God included within it. (whom most of us doesn't worship). Now feel free to say something about my country, you arrogant bastard. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Denmark is the setting for Hamlet. HA!

 

Take that!