Pledge! Now!

[~Di]

uh, you're not presuming motive... but you presume the insertion of the phrases was political?   keep in mind, the country was quite different (religiously) when these phrases were inserted.  it was hardly an issue (some griped) so political motivations were not nearly as prevalent as they are today for removal.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't have to presume the motive for inserting those phrases. Congress, led by the infamous McCarthy, inserted those phrases to distinguish God-fearing Americans from those evil godless commies. I'm not making it up. Headlines of the day screamed said motivations, and quotes from congress-critters solidified it. My school studies of that era gave me more than enough fact to be quite confident that the reasons expressed by the congress at the time the changes were made were indeed factual.

 

Thing is, what they did seriously eroded the separation of church and state, which is exactly what it was intended to do, for the reasons so stated. Mind you, this was at the height of the cold war, when simply being a member of an out-of-favor political party (communism) was enough to get a person blacklisted, banned, deported and/or arrested.

 

I'd like to think we as a society have evolved enough since then that both our Pledge of Alligiance and our currency should be returned to their original, pre-commie-hysteria form.

 

(I also don't think congress should be opening each session with a Christian prayer, but that's a debate for another time! )

[Gromnir]

"Have I missed anyone?"

 

yeah. as usual, eldar missed Gromnir. having largely avoided the issue as to whether the pledge is a good thing or a bad thing, we took the road less traveled and pointed out that:

 

1) the Congress that passed the Bill o' Rights would not have been offended by the pledge.

 

2) the Court, a handful of non-elected old farts each with a handful of legal trained law clerks, is not the folks qualified to gather information 'bout, or makes rulings based on, the psychological impact of the pledge on young minds.

 

3) Congress can create committees and have hearings and such to gather such info... which is why they is the folks that we have create public policies.

 

and

 

4) we noted that if the majority o' Americans really does believe that there should be a Wall o' Separation 'tween church and state, then it sure seems like the obvious way to change the pledge is to get Congress to do so.

 

*shrug*

 

the warren Court made a big mistake with Brown... suckered folks into thinking that the Court were a viable option to bring 'bout positive social change.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

I would toss out the name dale brown for Di's real world persona but then he's a guy, still writing, and he lives in tahoe.

 

I'm going to leave this arguement for now.

[random evil guy]

"Frankly I hate the notion that a person must unquestioningly love the country in which they live. The fact that treason is still (technically) punishable by death in countries with capital punishment makes my blood boil. The way I see it, a pledge of allegiance is just another example of this mindset. So I'm glad this ruling's been made . . . How long it'll be before it gets overturned is another matter entirely."

 

Dude on some other forum, and I wholeheartedly agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

second that. nationalism is irrational and pointless. why should i even care about my own country? sure, i can relate to the community where i live and grew up in, but country? please... an abstract and coincidental structure; i couldn't care less...

[Reveilled]

Ressurecting dead threads is irrational and pointless. "

[taks]

Thing is, what they did seriously eroded the separation of church and state, which is exactly what it was intended to do, for the reasons so stated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if it was required, i would agree, but it is not, so you are wrong. sorry, di, but "establishment of a religion" as a statement by itself mandates a requirement on the people before it is a constitutional issue. it just isn't, and peer pressure alone (being the most outstanding reason provided) doesn't count as a law.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

The peer pressure charge falls flat at any rate. Having taught in a classroom setting, I can tell you that peer pressure works both ways and there are parts of the country where a student who actually stands and says the pledge as written is more likely to bear the brunt of ridicule than the students who stand around talking or mocking the pledge. I really tire of folks using the peer pressure argument. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.

 

Of course, at least their not as bad as the fools who suggest there's nothing but the "world community" or other such nonsense. Nations exists to look after the communities in aggregate. Bringing your community to a war is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The nation, any nation, exists to provide defence and protect the interests of its citizens. To suggest otherwise is not only random, it's rather stupid as well.

[julianw]

Nationalism is evil, but Patriotism is not an absolute good either. To serve the entire mankind is definitely greater than to serve your own country. If we have a truly just and effective international governing body (unlike the UN), pledging to its flag would make more sense to me.

 

I am not suggesting abolishing the pledge, however, since pledging to the American flag is probably the best option we have for now.

[Colrom]

I hear a lot about students who are ridiculed for not saying the pledge.  What about places and classrooms where children are ridiculed for saying the pledge?  I don't know who all's been a teacher in this thread, but I can tell you that kids will make fun of other kids no matter what.  If a child simply skips the words "under God," I doubt most kids will notice.  What about places where the pledge is simply a joke?  Places none of the students say the pledge?  Where kids simply stand and talk and joke during the pledge?  Do you think a child who says the pledge might be the target of scorn?

 

Calax is definitely against the phrase "under God" and yet he made the following observation.  "I was lucky I lived in sacremento, after I moved to EDH my teachers seemed to stop caring and I found my self wondering why I wasn't saying the pledge every morning."

 

Really, what's the deal with the issue?

 

Some folks suggest that the very idea of a pledge is bad.  It is, according to some, nationalistic.

 

Some folks suggest, at least from what I can tell, that the pledge is perfectly fine, but the words "under God" cause undue hardship.

 

Some folks suggest that the pledge is fine, but that it is a mockery in the way it is recited in schools today, where the problem isn't that the children are forced to recite the pledge but that they are free to talk during the pledge, make fun of it, and don't understand it in the first place.

 

Finally, some folks suggest that the pledge is fine and that it is perfectly legimate for schools to have a policy of recitation as is.

 

Have I missed anyone?

 

...And I hope that I don't have to point out how much longer every post would be if we had to include every exception set for every statement.  I would have thought that the words, "even atheists" would, logically, mean that other groups  were involved in the argument.  Right?  I mean, had I said "atheists are not caused hardship," I could understand the confusion.  As it stands, I have clearly understood from the very begining that some non-atheists are against the phrase "under God."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Eldar, the manditory reciting of the pledge in school is intended as a test of loyalty and religiosity. It is intended to be a test which will be failed in some way by atheists and perhaps others as well. We know this from the testimony of the writer and those who altered the pledge.

 

Whether or not it impacts the judgement regarding the legality of the compulsary reciting of the pledge in schools, I think that avoiding harm of others is a good objective, and so agree that it is worth discussing how the pledge may lead to harming students. One could argue that people are somewhat "harmed" if they are coerced into saying the words "under God" when they don't agree with them. I guess they are, but I am more concerned with the harm they may receive when they have the sh*t kicked out of them or are otherwise bullied for failing to spout the approved words.

 

I say this as a person who teaches in high school and has seen lots of bullying behaviors by parents, administration, teachers, and students. Bullying is all the rage these days - despite all the notices and speaches about how bad it is and how it will not be tolerated. I really don't put up with it - which comes as a shock to some folks.

 

Also I have personal experience as a bully myself - having as young child mercelessly led a class to bully a young German immigrant - calling him a Nazi and all that. I was invited to meet his mother and learn that his father was killed in the war and was generally made ashamed of what I had been doing. So I know what little it takes.

 

Also I know a rather large and athletic young Catholic who recently graduated from a southern university who said he found the roaming gangs of fundamentalist thugs looking for converts pretty intimidating.

 

So, I'm perfectly prepared to say it is a good idea if there is one less coerced public test which forcibly reveals a distinction which may lead to bullying or other harrasment or discrimination.

 

All that being said, I think the compulsary saying of the pledge in schools is illegal because it seeks to establish a state religion - monotheism - in contradiction to the constitution.

 

Gromir seems to think manditory reciting of the pledge is OK notwithstanding the constitution. But he does not seem to agree with the constitution or the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution and appears to be advocating overthrowing or ignoring the current law and resorting to pure majority rule or perhaps something else instead. There are alot of folks who share similar views (at least when they think they are in the majority) but I'm not one. After all, I do pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of American and to the republic for which it stands and I do pledge to protect and defend the constitution of the United States as well. So I'm not going to talk about ignoring the constitution and the established role of the judiciary.

 

Regarding intent of those who write laws and constitutions - it is not a mystery. They all wrote extensively on just about everything - and we know that some of the writers of the constitution were actually hostile to conventional religion - not suprising considering the history of their times - while others were suspicious of the good intentions and trustworthyness of religions other than their own. Some of them were likely atheists.

 

They did not recommend a compulsary pledge of allegience.

 

That was later.

 

My view is that the pledge violates the separations clause of the constitution. It seeks to establish a test which will distinguish montheists from atheists and others for the purpose of singling them out so that they can be harrased or converted. The specific mechanisms of harrasment and conversion are being developed in various laws about school corriculums and funding for school and aid programs.

 

It is a big deal.

 

It is illegal and immoral to force this upon people - especially children. These are just children. How can you subject them to this disgusting bullying in the name of God and our country for the purpose of supporting a state approved religious orientation?

 

Edited September 25, 2005 by Colrom

[Gromnir]

"Gromir seems to think manditory reciting of the pledge is OK notwithstanding the constitution. But he does not seem to agree with the constitution or the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution and appears to be advocating overthrowing or ignoring the current law and resorting to pure majority rule or perhaps something else instead. There are alot of folks who share similar views (at least when they think they are in the majority) but I'm not one. "

 

classic strawman nonsense. come back when you wann play like an adult.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dark Moth]

I think a good question to ask here would be which part of the pledge annoys you most: the "under God" part, or the whole "pledge allegiance" part.

 

Some folks have said they were opposed to the pledging to the country itself. I guess I can understand that if you have no love of your own country (and the good ol' U.S. has plenty of that) But one people fail to realize when discussing the negative aspects of patriotism is how essential unity is to a nation. Not a community, a nation. History has proven time and again that nations that are not unified fall. Just look at Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, the Soviet Union, and others. Heck, even our own country almost fell because of divisions from within. Who knows where we'd be if the south won the Civil War. My point is that while pure, ignorant nationalism is bad, to have no nationalism or pride of country can be just as bad, or even worse.

 

[Commissar]

"Gromir seems to think manditory reciting of the pledge is OK notwithstanding the constitution. But he does not seem to agree with the constitution or the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution and appears to be advocating overthrowing or ignoring the current law and resorting to pure majority rule or perhaps something else instead. There are alot of folks who share similar views (at least when they think they are in the majority) but I'm not one. "

 

classic strawman nonsense.  come back when you wann play like an adult.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the second time (that I've seen, at least) you've thrown in needless jabs at whoever you're debating with. Knock it off.

[Gromnir]

funny, we didn't notice a mod tag next to your name...

 

the guy misrepresents Gromnir position to a ridiculous degree... or he/she is so clueless 'bout Constitutional construction that he actually believes what he is saying. in either case, the posts is worthless... his for being misrepresentations or ignorant to an extreme degree and yours for not even remotely being 'bout the debate in question.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

p.s. if you wanna become a mod then we suggest you ask fin or fergie... 'cause you ain't built up 'nuff respect on your own for Gromnir to take you serious as a self-appointed mod.

[Colrom]

Well Gromnir, if you do not recognize what I have interpreted as your opinions then let them be the opinions of some unknown person - named Sibyl, perhaps - for surely there are many others who have such opinions, if not you.

 

As for your insulting characterizations - you should keep them to yourself.

[Commissar]

funny, we didn't notice a mod tag next to your name... 

 

the guy misrepresents Gromnir position to a ridiculous degree... or he/she is so clueless 'bout Constitutional construction that he actually believes what he is saying.  in either case, the posts is worthless... his for being misrepresentations or ignorant to an extreme degree and yours for not even remotely being 'bout the debate in question.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

p.s. if you wanna become a mod then we suggest you ask fin or fergie... 'cause you ain't built up 'nuff respect on your own for Gromnir to take you serious as a self-appointed mod.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Petulance isn't your best side, buddy.

[Gromnir]

don't have a best side. be that as it may, you still ain't a mod. got any insight on the issue, or you just wanna talk 'bout Gromnir being a meanie?

 

what a joke.

 

"As for your insulting characterizations - you should keep them to yourself. "

 

why? if the characterizations is accurate...

 

now, does anybody wanna talk first amendment, or you wanna continue to whimper and moan?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

don't have a best side.  be that as it may, you still ain't a mod.  got any insight on the issue, or you just wanna talk 'bout Gromnir being a meanie?

 

what a joke.

 

"As for your insulting characterizations - you should keep them to yourself. "

 

why?  if the characterizations is accurate...

 

now, does anybody wanna talk first amendment, or you wanna continue to whimper and moan?

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be happy to, if you're going to be civil, or at the very least act your age.

[Gromnir]

for chrissakes...

 

got commie prentending to play mod and saying nothing and we got col poking holes in arguments nobody made and as far as we can tell, nobody has agreed with.

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

is getting pathetic.

 

thread is dead or dying, that is for sure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2005 by Gromnir

[LoneWolf16]

You...you....you big MEANIE!

[Commissar]

for chrissakes...

 

got commie prentending to play mod and saying nothing and we got col poking holes in arguments nobody made and as far as we can tell, nobody has agreed with.

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

is getting pathetic.

 

thread is dead or dying, that is for sure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute. What do you want anyone to say? You wrote the Constitution, buddy, so you're well aware of precisely what was intended by it. You don't think the separation of church and state exists, and you're not going to change your mind, so what the hell's the point in arguing with you?

 

And hey, you're the chap who's interested in the personal attacks that have no bearing on the argument at hand. I'm just trying to get you to knock it off. If you really don't want to, though, I suppose I could always join in with some choice reflections on your alma mater.

[Calax]

grom would you please either keep characterizations to yourself or tone them down? Not everyone agrees with you and you can't berate somebody for thowing out their opinion.

[Colrom]

I think a good question to ask here would be which part of the pledge annoys you most: the "under God" part, or the whole "pledge allegiance" part. 

 

Some folks have said they were opposed to the pledging to the country itself.  I guess I can understand that if you have no love of your own country (and the good ol' U.S. has plenty of that)  But one people fail to realize when discussing the negative aspects of patriotism is how essential unity is to a nation.  Not a community, a nation.  History has proven time and again that nations that are not unified fall.  Just look at Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, the Soviet Union, and others.  Heck, even our own country almost fell because of divisions from within.  Who knows where we'd be if the south won the Civil War.  My point is that while pure, ignorant nationalism is bad, to have no nationalism or pride of country can be just as bad, or even worse. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. It is worthwhile to sort that out.

 

For myself I don't have a problem with the pledge as originally written - especially in view of the seccession of the confederate states and the loyalty issues that arrose from that - also the loyalty issues arrising from the views of some other groups. Even now there are some military folks who have said things which may be seditious about taking over military control if the leadership is weak in their opinion. These pledges of allegience ensure that no one can say the issue of loyalty and what it means never came up. I think it is a good idea to have our children affirm their loyalty to the flag of the United States and the Republic for which it stands.

 

I can understand if a child visiting from another country who is going to a school here where the pledge of allegience is given chooses not to recite it. I would hope they are not bullied because of that. But I think that the positive value of encouraging assertion of alliegence to the US Republic is worth the possible negatives.

 

I don't see much point in going crazy about it, though, and adding alot of other tests, although I guess that happens. I like the pledge to support and defend the Constitution since that makes things even clearer.

 

There is nothing in the constitution that I know of that argues that a pledge of alliegence to the United States would be illegal. The separation clause only causes a challenge on mandatory recitals because the pledge was modified to insert the "under God" phrase.

 

As an aside - One of the precursers to fascist overthrough of the constitutional governments in Spain, Germany and Italy in the 1930s was tolerance for open talk and actual planning for overthrow of the governments.

[Gromnir]

for chrissakes...

 

got commie prentending to play mod and saying nothing and we got col poking holes in arguments nobody made and as far as we can tell, nobody has agreed with.

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

is getting pathetic.

 

thread is dead or dying, that is for sure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute. What do you want anyone to say? You wrote the Constitution, buddy, so you're well aware of precisely what was intended by it. You don't think the separation of church and state exists, and you're not going to change your mind, so what the hell's the point in arguing with you?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

more strawman crap. lord only knows where/how you clowns come up with this junk... and just so we is straight, we not give a damn 'bout your characterizations of Gromnir. got to town on insults o Gromnir. not bother us in the least. for chrissakes, growup. is just words on a message board... and as you point out, Gromnir most certainly DID note earlier that such characterizations do not strenghten or weaken an agrgument. 'course we also noted that there is a fine tradition o' insulting folks in debate... even ghandi got in some quotable shots. so the conclusions some folks wanna draw from Gromnir statements on the subject o' personal attacks is... odd. poor reading comprehension? nevertheless, attack away... though this continued line o' debate o' commie's is tending to makes him look a little hypocritical, no?

 

personal attacks on Gromnir not bother us in the least. is silly to get worked up over such stuff. however, characterizations of Gromnir arguments better be accurate or you can expect more lumber to come your way. after all, the only thing worth arguing 'bout is the argument. try to wrap your mind 'round that one.

 

on a side note, Gromnir is curious 'bout "choice reflections" o' our alma mater. those is always amusing... and as we got multiple degrees from multiple universities, we offer much opportunities. have at it.

 

...

 

and still nobody wanna actually talk 'bout first amendment.

 

go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

grom would you please either keep characterizations to yourself or tone them down? Not everyone agrees with you and you can't berate somebody for thowing out their opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

never does Gromnir berate folks for having a different opinion. you should pay closer attention. bad reasoning and mischaracterizations and general foolishness? sure, we give folks a hard time 'bout such, but we got nothing 'gainst folks having an opposing view.

 

got a first amendment question in there?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Commissar]

more strawman crap.  lord only knows where/how you clowns come up with this junk... and just so we is straight, we not give a damn 'bout your characterizations of Gromnir.  got to town on insults o Gromnir.  not bother us in the least.  for chrissakes, growup.  is just words on a message board... and as you point out, Gromnir most certainly DID note earlier that such characterizations do not strenghten or weaken an agrgument.  'course we also noted that there is a fine tradition o' insulting folks in debate... even ghandi got in some quotable shots.  so the conclusions some folks wanna draw from Gromnir statements on the subject o' personal attacks is... odd.  poor reading comprehension? nevertheless, attack away... though this continued line o' debate o' commie's is tending to makes him look a little hypocritical, no?

 

personal attacks on Gromnir not bother us in the least. is silly to get worked up over such stuff.  however, characterizations of Gromnir arguments better be accurate or you can expect more lumber to come your way.  after all, the only thing worth arguing 'bout is the argument.  try to wrap your mind 'round that one.

 

on a side note, Gromnir is curious 'bout "choice reflections" o' our alma mater.  those is always amusing... and as we got multiple degrees from multiple universities, we offer much opportunities.  have at it.

 

...

 

and still nobody wanna actually talk 'bout first amendment.

 

go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're the one writing the theses, man, so I'm curious as to which one of us is actually getting worked up on the issue.

 

Rail away at my reading comprehension skills all you like, but you've got to give me some credit; it's not always easy to wade through crap written by a guy pretending to be an ork, or whatever it is you do. It's a cute motif, I'll give you that.

 

What do you want to discuss about the First Amendment, exactly? We disagree on interpretation. Not all that much more to say, is there?