|
Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 27, 2004 19:56:54 GMT -5
You must be very careful about what you say. The Founding Fathers, on the whole, were not pilgrims or puritans. The pilgrims and puritans were just as religiously intolerant as those they were trying to escape. All Americans should rejoice that the puritans and pilgrims didn't play a prominent role in writing the Constitution. Allow me to retype that with a full stop between the "The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution." and "The founding fathers ..." I think that should satisfy critics, as both statements are true and documented. The puritanical pilgrims left England and went to mainland Europe to escape persecution, only to be faced with similar treatment in Amsterdam (I think it was Amsterdam). They decided to go to the new world to set up a colony that would allow them to live and worship as their religion saw fit. As for the second portion of my statement: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” ~James Madison, 1803 It is also true that the puritans were intolerant and persecuted others based on creed. It should be noted, however, that the Salem Witch Trials were not unique to the fabric of american history. The same persecuation occured in Europe (and most likely other regions of the world). Documentation of Witch Hunts in America and Europe
|
|
coolguy
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 26
|
Post by coolguy on Mar 28, 2004 23:50:39 GMT -5
I don't recognize the Pledge of Allegiance (POA) as a pledge to the consitutional republic in which I live (the United States of America). The POA is simply unConsitutional and I won't ever say it, any part of it, unless it is changed to wholly comply with the US Constitution.
[glow=red,2,300]O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!” And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave![/glow]
That's the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner. Sucks doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by NotWicked on Mar 29, 2004 18:20:04 GMT -5
I agree with Dinah! So many times I have just not wanted to stand and recite the pledge. Does that make me a bad person? To have to STAND and show you are among the others is another thing that really bothers me. If you stay seated, people look at you with hatred in their eyes! I have been to ball games, horse shows, auctions and many more places where they start the event with Pledge and then the "lord's prayer". I am so tired of it! I am not a second class citizen! What do you do in those situations? I feel like a small bug that is about to be squashed if I DARE not to stand. What a MESS this country is in!
|
|
|
Post by ck on Apr 5, 2004 0:44:11 GMT -5
This might be way off topic cause i didn't read a thing but people that argue that the "under god" part has been in the pledge forever and why take it out now that is false "under god" part was added on April 22, 1951.
and that is that
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 5, 2004 0:59:25 GMT -5
Not off topic at all, ck. The addition of the words (and the circumstances surrounding why they were added) is a very important aspect to why they should be removed.
Unfortunately, I don't think that Newdow will prevail in this case ... I think there may be one opposition vote, but the pledge will stand as it is written now. Part of the government's case involves a 1943 case, West Virginia BOE v Barnette (prior to the addition of those pesky words) that ruled that students (in particular JWs) did not have to stand and salute the flag, based on thier first amendment constitutional rights. Newdow did a good job at countering that by pointing out that being forced to hear it is equally offensive.
I just don't think that the USA is ready to give up ceremonial deism yet. Giving up the words "under God" will result in a lot of other kettles of fish. The words "In God We Trust" on currency, for example.
There is a case (currently in the Third Circuit) that tackles the pledge from another angle, and in this one, the West Virginia BOE vs Barnette case may prove beneficial to the abolition of the pledge. The 3rd Circuit case deals with abolishing the pledge based on the forced political indoctrination associated with a loyalty oath. The interesting ruling from the Barnette case includes the following:
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 5, 2004 1:06:28 GMT -5
I must say we have argued this many times on this message baord, I also have said it has not always been in there.
I do stand during the pledge out of respect but i don't say the pledge.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 5, 2004 14:02:02 GMT -5
Correct, nonny ... the words 'under God' were not always a part of the pledge. These were added in 1954, during the height of McCarthyism ... A brief history of the pledge
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 5, 2004 16:21:01 GMT -5
AuntieSocialI agree that the concept of a pledge is a form of indoctrination and that such indoctrination is silly. I have no problem with having schools teach children how to be responsible citizens. However, something like a pledge seems to work against responsibility by demanding a tpye of blind faith in the government. Citizens who are responsible and intelligent shouldn't have blind faith in their government. But since the Supreme Court ruled that saying the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be compulsory in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), I don't think it is likely that we'll see an end to political indoctrination any time soon. Something interesting about the pledge case: 32 Christian and Jewish Clergy members and the Unitarian Universalist Association filed an amicus curiae brief (pdf) in support of Newdow. One of the biggest arguments for keeping "under God" in the pledge is the notion that the reference is ceremonial deism (meaning that it is a general reference that only acknowledges the historical background of the US). Here's part of what the brief had to say: 32 Clergy Amicus BriefI think this is a convincing argument. I'd imagine if I were still a theist, that the words "under God" as nothing more than a historical reference would seem to diminish the importance of saying it. Besides, as I heard Newdow state in a debate on the issue, I know that the "under God" part is not meant to be merely ceremonial. If that were the case, 99 senators would not have felt so compelled to defiantly say the post-54 pledge on the steps of the Capitol building after the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Newdow.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 7, 2004 15:53:31 GMT -5
I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will be able to extend the Barnette case that one step further ... listening to others recite the pledge is still an indoctrination, and infringes on freedoms all invividuals should have, the freedom of thought.
I wish I knew the name and particulars of the case currently in the Third Circuit. Larry Darby has been making a lot of references to it, but I haven't been able to get the names of the parties involved.
As far as ceremonial deism ... if one aspect of the pledge is merely symbolic, and has no great personal meaning, doesn't it bring up the question of the validity of the rest of the pledge's significance?
Maverick, I agree with your assessment regarding responsible citizens. I have encountered quite a few americans on PalTalk who do not consider it their responsibility to question gov't. To me, the primary responsibility of the citizenry of any constitution-based country is to first question, then agree (if the answers are satisfactory). To blindly believe in a gov't removes all of the checks and balances that are built into the system.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 13:17:16 GMT -5
I see there are some florida supporters who dont support GWB, if you want to get into it, The ballots were fine, the Democrates cried raised cain and blamed in on them...What is funny is before the ballots are used both partys sit down and look them over oking them. Seems to me like there are a bunch of crybabies out there that just cant watch their party lose for once. Anyone wish to talk about the war? Personally I think he did fine, i think it all should have been done quicker however with more troups but once again im a college student. lets not forget that Bush and his administration had degrees from Harvard and Duke and such places...Smart people i think they know what they are doing... Iraq had the ability to make weapons...or sell the technology, Sitting in Norfolk i feel alot better knowing that, that ability of Sadams (to sell or build big scary weapons) is no longer a factor. (mind you Norfolk holds one of the largest Naval bases on the East coast) Other countrys laughed at us when Clinton pulled the whole Sex scandle thing, and once again all the countries laughed at us when Florida pulled the whole cry " we want a recount because we lost and feel it was unfair " Poor democrates , heres an idea quick making our country look bad. What exactly has GWB does to upset yall so much? BTW the arguement with the Under God thing is the same as i feel on the Confederate Flag, its heritage Honor. Respect our fore-fathers they setup a great country... Yall know how this arguement started, an atheists like 8 year old kid had to say it, and the father did not like it raised cain and it just kept escalateing...Now was it really hurting the kid? Is it really hurting anyone? Why do people find it disrespectful, especially the agnostic atheists... if ya dont like the government so much GET OUT, Canada seems a popular place LOL, Keep under God, and if SC wants to fly the CSA colors let them its not hurting anyone.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Apr 19, 2004 16:27:33 GMT -5
Liv--- [ot]WOO! CANADA![/ot] I'd wanna move there, except that I'm getting comfortable (and that I don't have the power to). I'm with you on the whole "I demand a recount" stuff. But do you really think the democrats made us look worse then GWB is now ?? You are missing a big point on the Iraqi war. I agree, Sadaam Husein is a pretty crappy guy who had the ability to hurt us. What people are missing is that Sadaam was ANTI-Osama. Osama didn't want Sadaam in office; because he couldn't have Iraq. We took Sadaam out, and now what's going to happen? We're not going to set up our own government; the people will overthrow it. they don't want us there. Now, there's a big vacuum for power. The super-religious people are going to come in and take over, and THEY ARE with Bin Laden. Now, Al Queda (sp?) can come in and use Iraq as a base, and they have oil to get money from. Terrorists+base+money+hates the US. Not good. Liv, the pledge started out WITHOUT under God, then it was added. If the pledge said "I pledge allegiance to... ...one nation, there is no God, indivisible... ", and that was how it was originally made, would you say it? People would be so up-in-arms about it that it would be scary. But instead, it gets reversed so that only 12% of the people are up in arms. Do you think that shouldn't be protested?
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 17:23:46 GMT -5
But do you really think the democrats made us look worse then GWB is now ?? We will start with this first will you agree that any president in a war is gonna be looked down apon by other countries, i mean we have never really had the support of any country, we only come to their rescue so perhaps the real answer here is to totally pull out and watch, little countrys would fall appart, and big coutries would have their way with the little ones. We have brought alot of good to countries, for instance Germany yes its taken a little while but as of now they are booming. As far as Iraq goes, i disagree not everyone there hates us, Al - Quada (yea sp) is largely disrupted , however if they do take them over atleast now they cant get the Iraqy weapon ideas. However as far as their government goes, we are currently setting up a better democratic government, not to mention we will leave peace keeper troups in there to help protect the new government. What is interesing is now other nations want to invest in rebuilding iraq because it means an increase in finances IE now they know they can make a finantial gain they want a part, they did not want to do any of the work, they just want a piece of the money. Oil by and large comes from IRAN not Iraq so lets rework the statement: Nonunified Terrorists+ base+ money+hates the US. = No better off then before As far as the "there is no God" statement: the problem comes as you said there would be alot of people in an uproar which there would be because alot of the people in the US still hold that there is a God... This is the MAJORITY in the US and Majority Rules, the Minority has a voice although this country is founded on Majority Rule. So the 12% will lose. So then the goal is to make the Minority become the Majority. Then you will not have a problem removing it, untill then you gotta go with what ever the majority votes. I DONT like affermative action, I'm a White Male who lives in VA, I did not get into Virginia Tech soly based on the fact that i was male. I have a friend whos Asian and a female, same scores i had a better SAT she got into VT, i did not... I dont like it i made my voice known but nothing is going to come from it, becuase the majority thinks it is a good thing. Same idea. Does that make sense i can break it down further if not... I was wondering if anyone would comment about the Confederate Flag thing... I would kinda like to know what people thought on that?
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 19, 2004 17:53:42 GMT -5
Why do people find it disrespectful, especially the agnostic atheists... if ya dont like the government so much GET OUT, Canada seems a popular place LOL, Keep under God, and if SC wants to fly the CSA colors let them its not hurting anyone. Ack!!!! One of the fundamental freedoms in a democratic republic is the ability to question the government. Telling people who disagree with the government that they should leave is well, undemocratic. It is the responsibility of the populace to ensure that the government is line with the constitution of the US. This particular government has gone so far over the line (Patriots Acts, Rave Act, No-fly Lists, Faith Based Initiatives, etc) that it is becoming a place where citizens (and not just atheists) should be looking over their shoulders to see if they have a target on their backs. It is administrative actions such as the ones that are listed below that make it essential for citizens to question their elected officials. Demanding that tax-paying, law-abiding American Citizens move because they are demanding equality is extremely closed-minded and dangerous. With respect to the Pledge (with or without "Under God"), why doesn't the school system teach the children about the History of the Constitution, Declaration of Independance and the Pledge; teach children how to be responsible citizens without forcing a loyalty pledge (and saying the words doesn't prove loyalty anyway. I'm sure the McVeigh boys stood and said the pledge every day). There was a time when American citizens were able to be loyal to their country and the values it stood for without reciting a loyalty pledge. Why is a pledge needed at all? As a citizen of another country, we didn't see it as Clinton's doing at all. Actually, Clinton had (and still has) a very high popularity level in many foreign countries. Why anyone felt it necessary to spend that much money to prosecute a sitting-duck-president for having an affair is beyond me ... I found the whole thing to be a waste of resources. I didn't find it the slightest bit humourous.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 19, 2004 20:31:42 GMT -5
Before we get too far into the political discussion, I would like to request that we continue dialog about the Iraq war, President Bush, and other related issues in the Politics & Current Events section. This is to prevent the thread from getting off of its original topic. For the future, livinitup, please post yours thoughts in the appropriate section on the board. We try to accomodate all kinds of discussion in the different places but if you have trouble deciding where to post something, post it in the General Discussion section. Now, to address comments on the pledge case: livinitupThe "under God" portion of the pledge isn't a part of our pledge that dates back to the founding of the United States. The government added the words "under God" in 1954 as a way to differeniate America from the "godless Communists" of the Soviet Union. Our nation evidently had no trouble with honoring its historical roots with a secular pledge prior to 1954. Why do we need it to honor our roots now? livinitupYes, I know how the arguement started. An atheist named Micheal Newdow brough a lawsuit against his daughter's school district. He lost his case in the district court but won on appeal in the 9th Circuit. The decision handed down by the 9th Circuit has been heard by the Supreme Court. Newdow (the atheist's daughter) is not being raised an atheist. Her mother, who has legal custody of the child, is a Born Again Christian and she supports the words in the pledge. livinitupThe words "under God" break the nuetrality that the state is supposed to have with respect to religion. It coerces schoolchildren to participate in a religious excercise by making those who don't believe in God feel like religious and political outsiders. It violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution which requires that the state not respect an establishment of religion. livinitupIt is disrespectful and inappropriate for the same reason the words "under no God" would be inappropriate. With those words, the government is taking a position on religion. As a result, it is discriminating against atheists by not respect our right to disbelieve. livinitupWith all do respect livinitup, the above comment displays your ignorance and intolerance on the issue. The case being made here is that atheists should be able to pledge allegiance to the government without having to pledge to a God also. To apply this to the classroom, schoolchildren should be able to gain an appreciation for our system of government without being coerced into pledging belief in a God as well. Since when is leaving the country a solution to matters of disagreement? Why should an atheist be compelled to leave his/her home in the United States just because a majority of the people that are his fellow citizens disagree with him?
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 20:45:33 GMT -5
Mav, Very fair on the politics thing i saw it in other posts and did not think about it. My appologies. All i can say about the next part is wow... my oppologies for my offense, Its yours, Ill shut up I would atleast like to say why i think the pledge is needed, with or without the words Under God I do agree that it should not be hammered into the kids like they do at school now a days. However the idea behind it is to show your country your love and respect for them. I have seen War Vets cry as they say that pledge remembering the friends they lost in previous wars. To walk up to a Vet and say i dont think that thing should even be around well...he'd beat you up... Your right drilling it into a kid will not help matters, teachers and faculty try to use it as a way to get kids to respect their country however when the pledge is taught, the respect part i think alot of times gets left out. So regardless of those 2 words or not the Pledge is definitly needed, except the people who teach it need to explane just what it means when you say it.
|
|