# House Blocks Court on Pledge of Allegiance Ruling



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 23, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_co/congress_pledge_of_allegiance


Interesting.  I didn't know they could do that.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 23, 2004)

They can't.
Not based on the copy of the Constitution I have.

Supreme Court is the final voice in the law.
Congress can't do that.

Then again, it's just another bit of ruble in the continuing erosion of the document.



"[If] the King can model the constitution at will... his government is a pure despotism. The question then arising is, whether a pure despotism in a single head, or one which is divided among a king, nobles, priesthood, and numerous magistracy, is the least bad. I should be puzzled to decide." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:96 


"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, 
its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas 
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

"Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction,"

This is true, at least in part.  I know that the judiciary can be restricted in some ways by legislative decisions, although I'm uncertain as to how much breadth the legislature is allowed in doing so.  It's in my class notes somewhere.  

"and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage"

Seriously, do they have this kinda **** in Canada?  I think I'm moving to Canada.  Where does this guy get off saying this?  Protecting an affirmation of religion?  Last time I checked, America was about avoiding such legislation.  "Religion that is part of the national heritage" my ***.  

I'm moving to Canada.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 23, 2004)

Reminds me of the Heinlein story, "Year of the Jackpot," which contains the headline:

TENNESSEE HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL LAW OF GRAVITY.

No way in hell that one passes judicial review, even with the likes of Thomas and Scalia on the Court.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 23, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Seriously, do they have this kinda **** in Canada?


 Nope! Here, the church and state are completely separated. We even have and/or had gays and diverse religeous backgrounds represented in Parliament.


			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I'm moving to Canada.


Wear your woolies.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

Woolies?  Keep in mind, I live in Florida (or, what's left of it).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 23, 2004)

Personally, I've been leaning towards NZ myself....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 23, 2004)

Political Grandstanding. 

Hastert knows Frist isn't going to allow the bill on the Senate floor ... but all those House members up for re-election (and they are all up for re-election) can go and wave the flag ... or use it to smother the non-Christians in their districts.

I applaud the 173 members who voted NAY. 

Republicans YEA = 213
Republicans NAY = 6
Republican No Vote = 8

Democrats YEA = 34
Democrats NAY = 166
Democrat No Vote = 5

Independent NAY = 1


My State 
Charlie Bass = YEA
Jeb Bradley = YEA ....
(So much for 'Live Free or Die'.)


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2004)

I guess I'm in the minority here.   Whether they can pass legislation like that or not. It is about time the other branches of government have stepped in to equal the balance of power.  How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted?  If all the powers are supposed to be a check and balance system, then who checks the Supreme Court if not the legislative and executive branches?

Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 23, 2004)

Um...ah...if you're gonna wave the flag, it might be a good idea to understand the Constitution that the flag represents.

Our government was set up so that the Court is absolutely independant from the executive and legislative branches. Moreover, we have judicial review of little things like laws that undermine the Bill of Rights, because the whole idea was that Americans should NOT be able to vote away basic liberties, particularly when they're in a big fat hurry for some reason.

But if you want to do the original Pledge, which was changed by Congress during the Red scares of the 1950s, I might not mind--and neither might the Court.

It was written by an American minister, and here's how it went:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
And to the Republic for which it stands
One Nation, indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all.

His explicit intent was to support internationalism--at the time, a movement that led directly to the precursor of the UN, the League of Nations--and to give citizens of every country a unifying Pledge that espoused the same democratic principles. 

Sorry, but I'm about sick of those posturing fools like Zell Miller and Tom De Lay, who make it far too clear that to their idea of America, nobody who isn't a WASP need apply...


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> I guess I'm in the minority here.   Whether they can pass legislation like that or not. It is about time the other branches of government have stepped in to equal the balance of power.  How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted?  If all the powers are supposed to be a check and balance system, then who checks the Supreme Court if not the legislative and executive branches?
> 
> Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.



Funny you want the founder's intent made clear but you don't want the legislative branch to operate under the checks and balances that the founders introduced. A measure they introduced largely because they knew what a mess the mob could make of things if allowed to institute law with nothing to hold popular opinion in check vs informed opinion. 

Along those lines, the courts have rarely operated on sheer whimsy as you imply. Precedent plays a huge role as does the constitution. If lawmakers paid as much attention to that document as they're supposed to, the courts wouldn't have to keep busy  striking down nuisance laws and caclulated fundimentalist harassment designed to circumvent constitutional law solely by clogging up the instutional gears. (As good ol' Pat Robertson advocates.) 

How is religious freedom acheived by forcing people to pray to Jesus?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 24, 2004)

> How is religious freedom acheived by forcing people to pray to Jesus?



Simple: their interpretation of religious freedom is just freedom of their religion from all others, as well as from the rules of the Constitution.  Not too hard to convince fundies of this definition.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 24, 2004)

> Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.



Perhaps you should substantiate some of these accusations.  For example, please say what is so different from the founding fathers meaning of separation of church and state, or please describe how the Court has a history of just arbitrarily doing "what they wanted".  You know, something we could actually argue and debate.


----------



## Kane (Sep 24, 2004)

Here we go again;


Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something. 

Who cares whether we have the "Under God" part or not. Is it killing anyone? Is it destroying our society? Should we even care? Honestly I couldn't care less, however I think this is such a waste of time to even bring up.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2004)

It's just as easy to say, "Well then if it doesn't matter in the least, why insist on tacking it on?"

Somehow, it's seen as VITAL.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 24, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Here we go again;
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.
> ...


It's a governmental endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This, according to the First Amendment, is not supposed to happen. And you are right, to each individual the word "God" could mean any number of things. But let's carry this thought through: if it's the individual person who determines the meaning of God, shouldn't they also determine whether to include the phrase "under God" in _their personal _pledge? By not only using legislation to keep the phrase in, but blocking the Supreme Court from doing anything about it, the Legislature is not leaving such decisions to the individual; instead, the government is making such decisions for everyone, and that, as I said before, is not supposed to happen. 

And no, keeping the phrase "under God" in the Pledge doesn't kill anyone. Neither does burning a book.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Here we go again;
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.
> ...


 
Judge Roy Moore!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2004)

It is with very conflicting emotions that I want to add an example to this discussion.

The Czar of Florida ... the Re-Count Eating Beast of the South ... One of the two ugly step-sisters of the Bush clan (or is that three) ... 

Last year, ordered the legislature to create a law to keep Terri Schiavo alive by inserting a feeding tube into her body, against the wishes of her husband.

The legislature in Florida (which is uniquely similar to the impotent body in Washington), rolled over like an 8 week old puppy, to the whims of the governor and the 'religious-right' and wrote the law. The governor then went on to sign the law with the blood of her husband.

The Florida Supreme Court said yesterday that the Florida legislative body, and the Florida Governor can not go about the business of writing laws just to get around the rulings of the court.  How did they put it ... oh yeah :



			
				Florida Supreme Court said:
			
		

> "an unconstitutional encroachment on the power that has been reserved for the independent judiciary."


So, we have a clear example as to what would happen ... and still the Red State Representatives are Grandstanding ... Doesn't that embarrass anyone in the Republican Party? Don't you think we should change the pledge to read:

"With Liberty and Justice for All, who are just like us ... and to hell, quickly, with anyone else"?


I, truly, find it very sad that Michael Schiavo had to fight this battle in public. My thoughts and well-wishes go out to him. And I hope that no one ever finds themselves in the position he has been in for the last many years.

Mike


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 24, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> ...How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted?  ...


One of the points of our constitutional republic was to protect our rights against the whims of the masses.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 24, 2004)

Not totally true. A consequence of the Civil War was that the Supreme Court became the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controvercies. (1)

Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1908 (2) "that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

For a nicely detailed look at the Supreme Court, check out http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/supcthist.html

Having read that, I think regardless of what Congress passes in this issue, the Court will just nullify it as Unconstitutional.


(1) Forrest McDonald is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Alabama and author of sixteen books, including States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876; The American Presidency; The Presidency of George Washington; and The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. He was named by the NEH as the sixteenth Jefferson Lecturer, the nation's highest honor in the humanities. 
http://www.townhall.com/phillysoc/Mcdon2.htm


> The third and most potent prospective check upon state power--and also upon federal power-- was the Supreme Court. From a constitutional perspective, the truly revolutionary consequence of the Civil War and Reconstruction, one that was entirely unforeseen, was the virtually unanimous acceptance of the previously challenged idea that the Court was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies.



(2) Woodrow Wilson, _Constitutional Government in the United States_ (New Brunswick, N.J.:Transaction Publishers, 1908/2002),P.178


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 24, 2004)

Once again Mark Twain (It's a ficticious name Shania) sums up this scenario beautifully with his quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundril."


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 24, 2004)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It's just as easy to say, "Well then if it doesn't matter in the least, why insist on tacking it on?"
> 
> Somehow, it's seen as VITAL.


And I have just as much right to not include that "under God" line while I am saying the pledge if it is something that I don't want to say without it taking away from the "Pledge" idea of the "Pledge of Allegiance."

Leave it in, take it out, exercise your individual right to personally omit it.... how many people really have to say it or even say it with any sense of reverence or meaning anymore anyway?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 24, 2004)

Here we go again, indeed. It doesn't matter, unless of course I don't get my way.

If it doesn't matter, why'd the Congress--in the heart of the McCarthy era, mind you--step in and change the Pledge, inserting, "God," and "America," despite it had been the SPECIFIC INTENT of the minister who wrote the damn thing to leave them out? If it doesn't matter, why would our present Republican-controlled Congress--in the heart of a war era, with its own little witch hunts going on everywhere--start up with something that really isn't an issue?

The problem is that the Protestant white guy viewpoint remains normative in this country--the common sense, "zero degree," of discussion. So, everything else continues to be taken as an unnecessary change from that norm.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Leave it in, take it out, exercise your individual right to personally omit it.... how many people really have to say it or even say it with any sense of reverence or meaning anymore anyway?



When did they ever? The thing's mainly targeted at kids, and last I checked, most kids aren't paying attention to the words, they're just repeating what teacher says. They're not actually swearing fealty to the US every working day.


----------



## Nightingale (Sep 24, 2004)

The legislative branch of the government polices the judicial branch.  If they don't like the rulings of the supreme court, they are more than welcome to try to change the constitution, so the court then has a different set of rules to interpret.

the legislative branch does NOT have the right to tell the supreme court not to hear a case.  that decision lies with the court alone.  What they did do, however, is send a message to the court that they would prefer the court not hear that case prior to the elections.  The court will probably hear the case, but probably after the election.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 24, 2004)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...Yet, the supreme court and other courts have ruled that the posting of the 10 commandments is "unconstitutional" yet you can have other religious texts posted as "historical" or taught in schools.  You can't have school prayer anymore yet that went against previous case law before it when the supreme court ruled against it (it was also against public majority also.
----
Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law.  (quote taken from the national archives experience.)
--------
James Madison, the father of our Constitution said..."we have stacked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Jay, the very first Supreme Court justice said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Samuel Adams said, "Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." He also said, "The religion of America (are) the religion of all mankind." In other words, these fundamental beliefs belong to all world faiths and could therefore be taught without being offensive to any sect or denomination. (The Making of America, pp 677).

Benjamin Franklin also said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."

John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."

------------

I don't buy the line about "giving up rights" on the "whim of the masses".  Well, it's the masses that give power to the Constitution.  It factors in there if the "masses" want something changed than they have the power to do so.  There is too much given up from the majority to appease those in the minorities that have nothing to do with "rights" as people like to toss around.  Think about it, we can say "G*d D*mn" on TV because that's our "freedom of speech" but I can't say God in a prayer becaue it might offend someone who doesn't believe the way I do.  Why is it than that Congress opens each session with prayer if it's unconstitutional?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 24, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> the legislative branch does NOT have the right to tell the supreme court not to hear a case.  that decision lies with the court alone.  What they did do, however, is send a message to the court that they would prefer the court not hear that case prior to the elections.  The court will probably hear the case, but probably after the election.




Well said.  There has become way too much crossover between the roles of the three branches of government.  

One thing I think we need to keep in mind is that there is a difference between God and religion.  Using the words "under God" does not establish a state religions, as the Constitution was designed to prevent, but it does tie in with the history of religious persons in US history.  "God" could mean Jesus, Allah, or the Force.  The freedom of religion idea was there in part to prevent another example of a state religion such as the Anglican Church, which was established in England so that the king could get a divorce and force the entire nation to follow his beliefs.  Using the words "under God" promotes God, but no particular religion because it does not define God.  

There is a history as Punisher73 has displayed.  Couple that with "In God We Trust" on the money and you can see that God has played a part in many decisions.  But, all of the people who were doing things in the name of God were not of the same faith, although most were Christian.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...Yet, the supreme court and other courts have ruled that the posting of the 10 commandments is "unconstitutional" yet you can have other religious texts posted as "historical" or taught in schools.  You can't have school prayer anymore yet that went against previous case law before it when the supreme court ruled against it (it was also against public majority also.



That's not really true however. You can have prayer in school as long as you're not having the school officials lead that prayer. Nothing's stopping a kid from praying in class, reading the Bible etc. 10 Commantments, similar deal. It's being posted in classrooms to preach at students in a captive environment. 

THis is contrary to freedom of religion (and people would be screaming bloody murder if a Wiccan etc tried to do what's considered "reasonable" by the religious right in their attempts at forced indoctrination.)

As for the Christian influence, that was then, this is now. The FF supported slavery and genocide among other platforms that are unpopular now because of their blatant infringement of the rights of all, but nobody wistfully invokes the FF in those causes....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 24, 2004)

From the original article....



> In such a scenario, Akin said, Congress will have "emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about."


I didn't realize you can emasculate a heart.  Neato.

Glad to know the heart of our country is macho.  

_*And a minor thread-gank*_... this "pledge" debate was lumped in with gay marriage and flag-burning, I believe.  

Here's my thing about "flag burning".  

I have seen so many people driving around with mini flags on their cars.  Flags out front of their houses.  Flags they wave in parades.

I support the right of anyone who wants to politically demonstrate to burn the flag if they want.  I think it won't be a successful demonstration, and is stupid, and I won't be crazy about it, but that's me.  That's your right. 

On the other hand, I was a Girl Scout for many years.  We learned how to fold, store, raise, lower, and otherwise take care of the American flag.  I took these rules to heart - and they idea that, if you respect something, show it respect, don't just say you do.

Some rules for anyone out there who loves the flag so much, like the hundreds of people flying car flags, or flags over their fast-food buisness.

1) Don't fly it in inclement weather
2) Don't let it touch the ground
3) Don't fly it in the dark 

So I get a little peevish when someone who I saw just drop a mini American flag to the ground - or is flying one when it's dark and rainy - also rants about "flag-burning".

For true flag nitty-gritty (although this goes beyond anything I learned in Scouts)....

http://www.usflag.org/flag.etiquette.html

*/end gank*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 24, 2004)

First off, I absolutely agree about the Flag etiquette, having been a Boy Scout...hard to imagine, I know. One would think the Young Communist league, or something...especially because Americans like Michael Savage have forgotten, if indeed they ever knew, all the different forms patriotism has taken in this country. Personally, I'd a helluva lot rather sing of Olaf glad and big than kiss some piece of cloth every ten minutes. 

Second--is it just me, or is it actually the case that just as you can tell how good a diner in a small town is going to be by the number of calendars at the register, you can tell how arrogantly and stupidly somebody's going to be driving by the number of flag decals and stickers?

Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.)

Fourth--yes, some of the so-called Founding Fathers were Christians. Unfortunately for your argument, this included Masons, Catholics and Deists, as well as others who did not at all agree with today's whacked-out fundamentalists. And, hate to tell ya, it included people like Roger Williams, founder of my home state, and it most def included atheists like Tom Paine. "Protestantism," "Christianity," "morality," and "religion," are not synonyms.

Fifth--as has been pointed out, you've always been perfectly free to pray in school. You're perfectly free to hold meetings, and use school facilities for religious activities. You are NOT free to exclude religions and beliefs you don't like, and you are NOT allowed to ram your own beliefs about the Great Punta down everybody else's throat. Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 24, 2004)

Fifth--as has been pointed out, you've always been perfectly free to pray in school. You're perfectly free to hold meetings, and use school facilities for religious activities---Not true. Many schools do not allow religious groups to use school facilities to gather. Back when I was in high school (later 80's, early 90's) several "church groups" requested to be able to use a classroom either before school or after school to have a bible study and/or prayer group and were repeatedly turned down.  


Whatever the hell happened to that injunction of Jesus' NOT to pray in public, like the Pharisees and Hypocrites?  Do you even understand what this meant? Jesus didn't say you couldn't pray in public, he said not to pray LIKE the pharisees.  The pharisees would yell and scream and tear their garments to draw attention to themselves while interupting other people at the temple to worship.
--------

Third--sorry, "punisher," but I don't care to live in your Nehemiah Scudder theocracy. If you don't like the libertarian traditions and freedom of religion that so many struggled and died for, you should leave...try Iran. (Sorry...I hadda say it.) ---  I don't care what religion you are, or what your beliefs are. I think that there are universal truths in all religions.  I just happen to feel when around 80% of the country professes to believe in God (and I'm not identifiying what that belief means to each individual, or how they perceive what/who God is) that the majority of the people should be heard and listened to.  If I went to Iran, I wouldn't (not like I could anyways) pitch a fit about all their prayers to Allah, or if I went to China and heard prayers to Buddha. I would respect that the MAJORITY of people there believed that way and would not interfere with that.  And if it really offended me that much, I just wouldn't go to those places.  Why does  the MAJORITY in the US have to take a backseat to the minority on this issue?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 24, 2004)

First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting. In other words--and please do check up on me here--the Constitution is written to protect the rights of worship, speech, etc., of EVERYBODY, not just those in power.

Second off--will you PLEASE actually read the Bible, if you're going to thump it? Sorry for the intemperate tone and I KNOW the devil can quote Scripture, but will you PLEASE actually learn what you're defending.

This, goddammit, is Matthew 6, as translated in the 
"New Oxford Annotated Bible," as cited in "The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces," 713:

"6. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven. Therefore when ye doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you: they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking..."

Translation: keep your charity secret, so it doesn't make you vain and proud--God knows what you do, and sees your action. Keep your prayers to yourself, so you do not grow smug about how holy you are, or come to expect to be slapped on the back by the crowd. Instead, be humble, go home, pray in private, open your heart rather than reciting a dead formula...God knows, and can hear you--and He wants you to focus on your soul and on Him, rather than upon looking good.

I hear that Tehran is nice during our winter--and just incidentally, could you explain how calling yourself, "punisher," reconciles with ANY of Christ's teachings?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2004)

Second off--will you PLEASE actually read the Bible, if you're going to thump it? Sorry for the intemperate tone and I KNOW the devil can quote Scripture, but will you PLEASE actually learn what you're defending.
-------

You were the one who brought up the bible and not praying like the pharisees, and I have read it and understood it.  You are the one mistaken here.  The verses are referencing not praying in public but praying in public to be noticed by everyone. Again, this is not talking about a led prayer like before Congress or a prayer led before a sporting event.  

"We must not be proud and vain-glorious in prayer, nor aim at the praise of men.  And here observe, 1.  What was the way and practice of the hypocrites.  In all their exercises of devotion, it was plain, the chief thing they aimed at was to be commended by their neighbours." "What the places were which they chose for their devotion; they prayed in the synagouges, which were indeed proper places for public prayer...They prayed in the corners of the streets, broad streets (so the word signifies), which were most frequented.  It was to cause themselves to be taken notice of.  "Their pride in choosing public places, which is expressed in two things;  They love to pray there.  They did not love prayer for its own sake, but they loved it when it gave them an oppourtunity of making themselves noticed.  It is that they may be seen of men; not that God might accept them, but that men might admire and applaud them."  (Matthew Henry Commentary pg. 1227)

I have never once said that I was a Christian on any of these threads.  You assume much.  I am not a Christian, but that still does not change my views on this matter.   
------------
First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will"  Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803.  The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception.  Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2004)

First off--in reverse order--see, the way this works is that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the MINORITY because the right of the MAJORITY don't need protecting

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will" Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. The "will of the people" has amended the bill of rights 17 other times since it's inception. Why do you have such a problem with Congress passing this law and then if they chose to through popular vote of the people create an amendmant concerning the pledge?  I would feel the same way with WHATEVER religion this dealt with not just "God".  That's the crux of my argument, it's not for "Christian Worship" in a public place. It's that the  vast majority of the people want the pledge to have the term "under God" in it.  It does not affect anyone's religious beliefs or worship practices to have that in there, so you are not infringing on someone's religious rights to have that.  If the vast majority of people wanted to take it out and this case was  reversed and Congress passed something that said the supreme court couldn't hear cases to add it in I would support that also.

The majority of this counrty happens to have judeo-christian beliefs and others should recognize that and respect that whether they believe that also.  Again, if I go to China I'm not going to be offended if they pray before a soccer game to Buddha.  I'm against ALL religions of any kind being taken out of public places.  I mentioned before groups not being able to use schools to have bible/prayer groups.  What I didn't mention was I have also heard of schools denying "christian groups" this because then it would mean that they would have to allow other religious groups to do that also.  I do think that is wrong because it is discriminating against someone's religous beliefs.  But that is not what is at question here, no one is taking away someone's right to worship how they choose or believe what they want.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

OK, one last try...then, balloon animals.

The reason we have a Supreme Court and a system of laws is to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the demands of the MAJORITY. It is not a matter of voting, because some folks--and you are clearly one of them--would cheerfully vote away basic rights. That's well-established in our Constitution, in our legal system, in our history, and in all sorts of discussions. You talk about respect: why don't you have any for the basic institutions of your country?

I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality.

You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran.

I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?

Nice selective quoting of Madison. Please read the actual Declaration and Constitution: you won't have to go far down the page. They actually say that rights are, "self-evident;" because they come from a "Creator," and are "inalienable," which means that they cannot be taken by people because they were not given by people. Why would you WANT to allow voters to vote away little things like freedom of speech?

Oh well. This is useless. You don't know the texts nor the history; like too many folks, you simply think that you should get your way regardless. Fortunately, our Constitution forbids that--whatever our latest crop of Congressional dolts comes up with so they can pander to the worst impulses of their constituents during an election.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

Short version - 


> The reason we have a Supreme Court and a system of laws is to protect the rights of the MINORITY against the demands of the MAJORITY. It is not a matter of voting, because some folks...would cheerfully vote away basic rights. That's well-established in our Constitution, in our legal system, in our history, and in all sorts of discussions.


....


> Fortunately, our Constitution forbids that--whatever our latest crop of Congressional dolts comes up with so they can pander to the worst impulses of their constituents during an election.



Yup

For my opinions on the loyalty oath, its wording, rewording and history, a search of older threads will turn up a previously heated discussion.  Short summary - "under god" doesn't belong there.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "6. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in Heaven. Therefore when ye doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
> 
> And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you: they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking..."
> 
> Translation:


Thank you, Robert. I do not think this part of the Bible needs a translation. I think it says pretty clearly how Jesus thought people should pray. I wish several on this board would recall this scripture; especially in the 'Proof' threads.

If they can't remember this scripture, I think it was Psalms that says 'make a joyful noise' ... which is not something I see the believers doing. Fire and Brimstone, Hell and Damnation for us.

Mike


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2004)

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the *consent of the governed*---  Again you keep on preaching the big brother of government is here to protect the people from the people.  Name one "right" that the majority of have people willingly just "voted away" like you claim could/would happen if we weren't watched over?  Or a right that people have talked about just giving up because we don't know what's best for us but the gov't does..Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (except for those merciless Indian Savages mentioned also in the Declaration of Independence)

-----
I see you skipped over any and all recogniztion that this country was not founded simply by fundamentalist Christians. I would too, if I were arguing your case. But personally, I prefer historical reality.  I never said that they were fundamentalist Christians, I talked about their belief in God and the majority of them had judeo-christian beliefs.  I could give you quotes from Thomas Jefferson saying how bad Christianity is, I know that some didn't believe in a "fundamentalist christian" and I didn't choose to ignore it. I have read the documents many times, along with a constitutional law class in college.  So let me get this straight a "God" gave us they inalienable rights that are self-evident in this country but we are not "one nation under God"?  Most of the founders believe in "God", you are the one saying that they were fundamentalist Christians, not me.  I pointed out their belief in a God and how it helped shape some of their thinking.


--I see that rather than simply quoting the Bible and offering an interpretation, you've quoted a commentary. Hm. Well, I would too, because the actual text is unequivocal. Why would you want to distort it?

 You brought up the verse, I responded what it was talking about and you claimed I was wrong. So I used other scholarly work that supported the sinterpretation of what the verses  mean. You were the one who distorted the verse to mean  no praying in public, not the meaning of the verse that talks about making a big production of praying in public to draw attention to yourself.

You're quite right: nobody's talking away religious rights. They are taking away the rights of clowns like Pat Robertson to force loopy Christian beliefs upon everybody else, and to get teachers, public officials and the cops to help them do it. Why do you even WANT to be able to force people to pray your way? It's un-American; it's what they do in Tehran----HMMMM again, where does this have to do with FORCING someone to pray someone else's way?   You  keep on hounding on "forcing people to pray a certain way" where has that been said? You are bringing other people's arguments that I haven't made into this discussion.  For the record I think Pat Robertson is loopy (come on now how many revisions of your 'the end is at hand' book can you have before people notice you might be wrong about it) and don't agree with his agenda Sitting in a room while someone prays before a gathering is not forcing someone to pray a certian way.  I deal with ALOT of INS inmates and as part of their religious beliefs they are to face mecca at certain times of the day and kneel down to pray, they are allowed to do that...it is their RIGHT to choose to do so and it doesn't bother me that I have to be in there while they are doing it. They have chapel services in the housing unit for muslims and christians and if you don't want to be there in the room no one is forcing you to attend it.   If we were "forcing" someone to pray a certain way we would pass laws against that and make that illegal, no one has said we should be doing this except for your phantom argument that people are forcing people to pray a certain way, which I agree with you on. I just don't agree that being in the room while others pray is being forced to pray that way also.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 25, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> (except for those merciless Indian Savages mentioned also in the Declaration of Independence)[/QUOTE]Is this a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> Name one "right" that the majority of have people willingly just "voted away" like you claim could/would happen if we weren't watched over?


I am going to pass over the really big things, like the Central Intelligence Agency, which by Constitutional Reckoning is illegal. Seems to me that somewhere in that there Constitution, the Executive Branch is required to report the amount of money they are spending to the Legislative Branch. A scant handful of people know how much money this organization spends and where they spend it. 

We'll ignore that 'right' that was given away ... and take a look at something a bit more close by ... ...

YASER HAMDI​​Perhaps you have heard that this American Citizen was held for two years without the right to council. He is to be (or has been) released without charge.​​President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft should be ashamed of themselves. That they could so casually cast aside the rights of an American Citizen is reason enough for them to be removed from office.​​Similarly Supreme Court Justice Thomas should be impeached for his lone disregard of citizen's rights.​​​Michael Edward​


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight a "God" gave us they inalienable rights that are self-evident in this country but we are not "one nation under God"? Most of the founders believe in "God", you are the one saying that they were fundamentalist Christians, not me. I pointed out their belief in a God and how it helped shape some of their thinking.


Actually, those inalienable rights were granted by 'their creator'; not 'god'. But, feel free to change the words to suit your argument.

And while I am no expert, I believe even Mr. Jefferson opposed this phrase. I thought that most of the founders were diests, which in today's parlance would be described as an 'agnostic'.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes, it was a direct quote they are listing the grievances they had against the king. Here is the exact quote.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."


"the Law's of Nature and Nature's God" and "their Creator" a couple sentences later. It's not changing the words, use of the capital letter is used to denote a specific name not a concept.  
----

Perhaps you have heard that this American Citizen was held for two years without the right to council. He is to be (or has been) released without charge.​President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft should be ashamed of themselves. That they could so casually cast aside the rights of an American Citizen is reason enough for them to be removed from office​ 
I agree with you on this, but this isn't something that the majority of people consented to through a vote or otherwise. That was something very wrong that was just done. 

We can also both agree that we disagree. Guess this is why there are also so many political analysts that would support both our sides.  Have enough balloons to share for some balloon animals for all of us?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perhaps you have heard that this American Citizen was held for two years without the right to council. He is to be (or has been) released without charge.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft should be ashamed of themselves. That they could so casually cast aside the rights of an American Citizen is reason enough for them to be removed from office​


​


			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I agree with you on this, but this isn't something that the majority of people consented to through a vote or otherwise. That was something very wrong that was just done.


I understood that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States House or Representatives prior to being signed into law by the President. As this body is directly elected from the citizenry, it serves as my voice in Washington. If the House of Representatives votes for a bill, by extention, each of the citizens has voted for the bill.

We do not run our Federal system of governance via 'Ballot Initiative'. Each of those in Congress who voted to steal away the rights of citizens should be removed from power. 

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court (with the exception of Justice Thomas) recognized that citizens have rights (even those born of Saudi Arabian parents with a first name of Yaser), and they have ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to correct the error of his ways.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 25, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> Many schools do not allow religious groups to use school facilities to gather. Back when I was in high school (later 80's, early 90's) several "church groups" requested to be able to use a classroom either before school or after school to have a bible study and/or prayer group and were repeatedly turned down.


 
What you either are unaware of, or don't want to mention is that the courts have frequently ruled against such decidsions of the public schools in question. 



> Jesus didn't say you couldn't pray in public, he said not to pray LIKE the pharisees.  The pharisees would yell and scream and tear their garments to draw attention to themselves while interupting other people at the temple to worship.



Even by your interpretation, that's not any different than what the fundies are currently doing. The whole idea of Christians being persecuted because they can't pass laws forcing Christian indoctrination on the general population is absurd. The utter shrillness of those like Pat Robertson is no less obnoxious and falsely pious than the acts decried by Jesus in those passages. 

The only "right" to worship those types are losing is the right to force their opinions on everyone else. 



> I don't care what religion you are, or what your beliefs are. I think that there are universal truths in all religions.  I just happen to feel when around 80% of the country professes to believe in God (and I'm not identifiying what that belief means to each individual, or how they perceive what/who God is) that the majority of the people should be heard and listened to.



80% of the nation doesn't think that manditory school prayer to your particular interpretation of the Judeo Christian God is a ducky idea.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

What fundamental rights have Americans ever tried to vote away? What's this thread about, again? 

In my view, I have an absolute right not to be forced to sit through prayers to a God I don't believe in. I have the right not to have my kids forced through such rites, too. I even think I have the right not to be pressured towards reciting foolish loyalty oaths to pieces of red, white and blue cloth.

Perhaps as importantly, I think Americans have the right to habeas corpus, counsel, trial, bail. I think that when we're dealing with others, we have the responsibility not to grab people, hold them incommunicado, refuse to bring charges, refuse them counsel, and--oh yes--torture them. Oooh, there's a wacky concept. 

So vote against Bush, or you're voting FOR these things....and no, not kidding. This crap's being pulled on his watch, as he's fond of saying. What's more, he and his cronies are arguing for the right to torture, among these other rights. 

As for the Constitution, somebody shoulda took better notes. Or found a prof with a brain. It says that, a) "we hold," certain truths to be, "self-evident;" that is, some things prove themselves; b) that this particularly applies to the fact that we are, "endowed by our Creator," with, "certain inalienable rights," (as I wrote but you did not read, Mr. P, "inalienable," means that they cannot be taken away by men, because they were not given by men); c) that "Governments," are instituted among "men," to protect these rights. 

The history of the Bill of Rights is that new rights are granted and old ones extended--the only rights taken away are the "right," to own slaves, the "right," to deny women the vote, etc. 

As for your reading of Matthew...weird. I see why you say what you're saying: the Biblical text is completely incompatible with your argument.

Here's what I really don't get: why would anybody be in favor of the radical, revolutionary madness espoused by the likes of Pat Robertson? Why would anybody sensible be arguing such an un-American position?


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 25, 2004)

We are poor Americans...

So much freedom, so much bickering.

Robertson, i noticed u said that you have the right to not sit through/hear basically anything u don't want to, and you are exactly right. Exercise that right by plugging your ears, or leaving.



While i am unsure of my ideals on the 'Under God' issue, i think it is a problem. Basically, whatever we don't believe, we shouldn't have to do because we have rights. If I don't believe i should have to do the speed limit, then i won't do it, and since from what i heard the Constitution is about making sure the minorities dont' get screwed, i think i'll complain when i get a ticket.

p.s. - i am really horrible with analogies, so don't yell at me too much.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

Gents, 
  Friendly reminder, lets keep the sniping down, myself included.  

Danke.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2004)

AaronLucia said:
			
		

> We are poor Americans...
> 
> So much freedom, so much bickering.
> 
> ...


There is a bit of a difference between the actions you take under your own judgement, such as driving your automobile at high rates of speed, and actions taken as guided by a state-sponsored activity, such as school.

In the school, all the children must begin their day with a 'PLEDGE' of 'ALLEGIANCE'. This pledge is often led by the school principal over a public address system, as well as the teacher in front of the class. To expect a child of 8 or 9 or 10 years old to understand what they are saying, and squaring that with a belief system is, I think a bit ridiculous. It is even more fantastic to think that if the child has a belief system that conflicts with the phrase 'under God' that they could just remain silent or step out of the room.

Oddly, even the Catholic Church realizes this. I was baptised as an infant, with my parents and god-parents speaking for me before the Church. I attended many years of Catholic schooling to understand the belief structures of the Church and only after all that was completed, does the Church allow the sacrament of 'Confirmation', where speaking for myself, I become a member of the Church.

It is foolish to expect children to take this pledge. Regardless of the phrase 'Under God'.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 26, 2004)

The pledge makes sense, especially since it is in a PUBLIC school. In the same way boy scouts have oaths and Kenpo Karate schools have creeds, children should be introduced to things such as loyalty at a young age.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 26, 2004)

As for your reading of Matthew...weird. I see why you say what you're saying: the Biblical text is completely incompatible with your argument.
-------

Must be nice to ignore other biblical scholars works that don't agree with your interpretation.  Don't bother expecting other responses from me on this as I have said we can agree to disagree.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The pledge makes sense, especially since it is in a PUBLIC school. In the same way boy scouts have oaths and Kenpo Karate schools have creeds, children should be introduced to things such as loyalty at a young age.


To equate 'PUBLIC' schools with the Boy Scouts or Kenpo Karate Schools is a bit of a false analogy. 
In my state, all children are required to attend school until the age of 16.
No one is required to attend Boy Scouts or Kenpo Karate Schools. 

I looked up the definition of allegiance. It looks to me kind of outdated.


*1 a* *:* the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord *b *(1) *:* the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) *:* the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

*2* *:* devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

​In my opinion, we should be teaching our children how to process information and come to a reasoned position, rather than indoctrinating them in the 'obligation to his leige lord'.


Wouldn't loyalty be better performed if it was a dynamic choice of the citizen, rather than something 'owed'?

Mike


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 26, 2004)

Ok...i was thinking about this one..

'And to the Republic for which it stands..'

I thought we were a democracy...

So therefore we shouldn't have to say that either.. 

And lastly, as much as i like having 'Under God' in the Pledge, in fairness it shouldn't be there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

Nope, we're a Republic.

Definitions:
Republic: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can _elect people to represent them_
Democracy: is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised _directly by them_ or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

Heres a bit more info on the systems http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm


----------



## GAB (Sep 26, 2004)

Hi All,

We are a Constitutional Government, a Democratic Republic. We have an Indirect Democracy.

Because we elect others to speak for us, Representitives.

I believe we have the longest lived Constituitional Government ever.

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Sep 26, 2004)

Hi all,

The Under God was added in the Eisenhower Admin.

It is not some old and loyal item that has been around since the beginning of the pledge. 

It was placed in the pledge by the right wing and it is still being held there by the fundamentalist's of this country. 

I guess they figured like most of the far right, that if you envoke God it will help your cause. 

God Bless America is another one that is being over done at this point in time.

Like the Sikh's, Muslim's and others who believe God is on their side and if you pray, you will not be the prey. If you do it four or more times a day it will even be better for you, while kneeling and kissing the ground. Gets even better if you have some beads to play with.

We should all get down on the ground in America and Kiss the ground for the freedom it gives you and the Constitutional Government we have. Makes about as much sense to me. 

The best thing our forefathers did for us was write that document. The best thing we can do is to live up to their standards and keep it going.

Regards, Gary


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In my opinion, we should be teaching our children how to process information and come to a reasoned position



How can we if we cant:



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> expect a child of 8 or 9 or 10 years old to understand what they are saying



If the pledge teaches one thing, it is rote memorization. If we're lucky, students will come away with a little sense of pride in their Flag, and the Republic for which it stands. I know that's not too popular with the left these days.


----------



## GAB (Sep 26, 2004)

Hi,

Since the great majority of your Dr.'s of whatever field it might be in, are from the middle or the left. 

What is their feeling on this idea of rote learning based on a going to the extreme right government?

Saddam was a secular Government, one of the reasons why we were there for him at one time, He and Osama were not amigos, so what happened there in that situation is, we are against massive killing in the name of a god or a man.

So what is the other alternative to a war that has been going on in gods name now for so many centuries you can not count them on your hands and toes and those of your favorite partner combined?

When will it stop? When you as one individual are pushing up daisys or your ashes are in some location of your choice.

History is brutal, but it is at least there to study, and try to learn from. We are not learning we are just repeating, so much for rote learning, it is obviously a good way. If it is in the direction of a civilized society, and in whos opinion is that? He who is in the ruling party at the time, I guess?

What has Khadafi been doing of late, I think he was one we changed his mind, for a while at least. Is he stll backing the IRA (Ireland) 

I think we are trying to show the world we will not tolerate it any longer. Is that good or bad? We will see what our people think in the November election.

Regards, Gary


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

Gee, and they taught me that we were actiually a "representative democracy:" we exercise our rights to vote "through," elected representatives.

I still don't understand the contradictions and the radicalism of some of these arguments. Some of you insist that we absolutely must follow what the "Founding Fathers," (true only of Washington--after all, we erected about the world's biggest phallic symbol in his honor, which is why when Maya Lin sited the Vietnam War Memorial, she...but I digress) intended--but the instant anybody brings up the original intenet of this Pledge thing, you shy away.

Some of you despise countries like North Korea and Cuba, where they have pictures of their Maximum Leader right next to the flag in every classroom, and kids start out the day with a rote recitation of their duty to the flag, the Max Leader and the country--and you want American schoolkids to start out the day with pretty much the same rote recitation.

Underneath of lot of these arguments, I think what's really at stake is real love of country--which should be based on what the country stands for ("liberty and justice for all," remember?) in reality. What I particularly dislike isn't the Pledge so much: it's the hypocrisy. We've got hungry kids, beaten kids, abused kids, futureless kids, all over this frickin' country, because we're too cheap to help them, we're too ideological to see them, and the likes of the current Prez run around yakking about opportunity and "no child left behind," rather than actually doing a damn thing for them. But oh boy, we sure git them kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Then there's that whole little thing with having kids recite, "with liberty and justice for all," while our current government goes endlessly to court to defend the current Prez's bizarre little theory that if we are afraid enough or just in a real big hurry, you don't HAVE any rights. Reciting the Pledge while our in-power politicans run around from talk show to talk show advancing the idea that we have the right to torture prisoners....it's a grotesque, radical redefinition of American traditions.

So, let's compromise. I'll pop for the Pledge, if a) everybody agrees to actually observe the provisions of the Bill of Rights, so the recitation means something; b) if we stop treating poor people and workring people like crap, so the Pledge actually means something; c) if we go back to the original Pledge as it was originally written, and fully support its writer's faith in internationalism and world government.

Otherwise, how 'bout we stop forcing kids to recite lies every morning?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> How can we if we cant:
> 
> If the pledge teaches one thing, it is rote memorization. If we're lucky, students will come away with a little sense of pride in their Flag, and the Republic for which it stands. I know that's not too popular with the left these days.


Please back up this statement. 

How do you measure the 'popularity' of 'pride' by the 'left'? 

What actions do you see being taken that justify such an obscene statement?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please back up this statement.
> 
> How do you measure the 'popularity' of 'pride' by the 'left'?
> 
> What actions do you see being taken that justify such an obscene statement?



Probably from the RNC.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040924_1679.html


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2004)

I do not accept that easy way out. While the Republican National Committee can be expected to do and say anything to get its clients re-elected (see the thread on Embarrassing statements), I expect more than that from MisterMike.

MisterMike is generally a thoughtful libertarian. If he chooses, he is able to articulate his positions. 

In this instance, he just threw out this outrageous statement to pick a fight. Methinks it is time for him to 'Put Up or Shut Up'.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

Good ABC piece--I particularly liked:

"His hands are very soft," she said of Bush's. "He must use some powerful lotion."

At another campaign stop, as Bush spoke at a park in Racine, Wis., a protester revealed a t-shirt with the word, "LIAR," and was escorted from the crowd.

A group led by conservative activist Gary Bauer is launching a television advertising campaign against John Kerry in Pennsylvania and Michigan to criticize his stand on gay marriage."

Uh, is it just me...?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 26, 2004)

I confess. I just wanted an excuse (however flimsy) to post that article. The winding down into incoherancy... The version my local paper ran lacked that dash of inanity (add an s there if you please.)


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 27, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Here we go again;
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.
> ...



God as a "universal force or something" was certainly not how the members of Congress intended the phrase to be used when they added it into the pledge back in the red-scare days.

Not only that, but the vast majority of those who support the phrase in the pledge don't view it that way either.  

If it can have so many meanings, why have it in the first place?  Especially since it wasn't in the original.

My question about this is:  Where did Congress get the authority to do this?  Such authority is explicitly denied to them in the First Amendment, so where did it come from?  Why do congresscritters feel that the Constitution can be freely ignored whenever they need a few votes?


----------



## Nightingale (Sep 27, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE-

Just a general note to thread participants: Please try to stay on topic.

Thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 27, 2004)

Marginal said:
			
		

> When did they ever? The thing's mainly targeted at kids, and last I checked, most kids aren't paying attention to the words, they're just repeating what teacher says. They're not actually swearing fealty to the US every working day.


And, legally, if someone tried to hold a minor to that oath they couldn't because minors can not enter into contractual agreements but are technically represented by their parents or guardians....

I don't mind the rote memorization thing as a way of building a foundation of civic practices (demonstrating at least respect if not reverence for the country symbollically through the flag).  The problem IMO is that most people understand the letter or technical outline of the constitution and the elementary level of concept and application that they learned in school (if that much).  Basically they understand it to the level of childrens tales (remember "Schoolhouse Rock"  'I'm just a bill...'?) much like the majority of people stop studying their faith beyond the 'bible school' level of understanding....

As far as politics, I am a conceptualist and am probably in the zone of 'elementary level' comprehension of the current event trends myself.  On this issue, I can understand the idea of political precedence with the move, though.  This kind of thing has happend before though.  It will happen again.  It will be reversed, modified, flipped back around..... all in time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

Maybe rather than push a 'loyalty oath' down our throats, they should spend some time teaching people why they should care.  Maybe a look at how the country was formed, why it was formed, who were the founding fathers, and just what the constitution really says would help.

Then again, maybe those arguing about this pledge could educate themselves more on it's history.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
http://pledgeqanda.com/

Of course, we can always return to the real original, if this "God" thing is such a big deal.


> When Bellamy wrote his Pledge in August, 1892, he was well aware of the Balch Pledge. In 1892 George T. Balch was the most influential person in the development of a patriotic flag ritual for the classroom. He was a New York City auditor and had developed a patriotic verbal flag salute and ritual, the first verbal flag salute used in American public schools. The students in his New York Public Schools gave his "American Patriotic Salute" as follows: students touched first their foreheads, then their hearts, reciting, "We give our Heads - and our Hearts -to God and our Country." Then with a right arm outstretched and palms down in the direction of the flag, they competed the salute"One Country! One Language! One Flag!"


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Maybe rather than push a 'loyalty oath' down our throats, they should spend some time teaching people why they should care. Maybe a look at how the country was formed, why it was formed, who were the founding fathers, and just what the constitution really says would help.
> 
> .


I think that is the point of education/social studies and the mission of at least NYS (though I know other states talk about it too) with the pubic school goal of developing citizenship in the students.  Even in my ELA classes I talk about the language arts skills as being able to recognize and evaluate how people are trying to bend you to their will (written or spoken) and how you are trying to bend people to your will.

That means comprehending the message, interpretting its meaning, evaluating it based on your own past knowledge and research (if time allows) and then forming your own opinion of agreement/disagreement with reasons.

If, developmentally and/or socially, students don't demonstrate a complete understanding or appreciation for political education/ramifications of knowing how it works - quite possibly it is more than a 'they' issue as a 'we' issue.

Athletes and movie stars are more 'believealbe' to the masses even if they are less educated or making less valid points.  There is a constant mistrust of the motives, character or decisions of polititians from the adults in a student's life.  How are they suppose to develop any real interest or engagement if the media/social message is 'why bother, it's all corrupt anyway?'  MTV has had a long history of trying to promote political awareness/involvement to youth.  Nickleodeon and other children friendly networks/shows have tried to do the same.  Unfortunately, it isn't going to work if the adult examples around them continue to sit in the dark and complain while they are hold a candle and the match....

It is a we issue.  That is why I am always pushing the idea that reform, criticism and activism if FINE as long as the goal is improvement and social/philosophical change that is affects the 'general welfare' (which has to be redefined constantly as the society changes), but constantly bucking/bashing the establishment with no direction or goal of improvement just leads to apathy.  I hear it all the time from students.  Part of it is that they are teens and self absorbed (part of the age) and part of it is that they don't really see participation as a worthwhile effort (also partly because of the age but another contributor is the adult example).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Given the full history of the Pledge, of which I was not aware, it's good to see that it IS always worse than I think it is.

I'm afraid that I reject the idea that it's wrong to criticize without Having A Plan. In the first place, a big reason teenagers are so apathetic is our society's systematically lying to them throughout their lives.

In the second--here's a plan. Stop lying. Teach real history. From time to time, remind kids that loyalty only to country and wealth is not good for you. 

Hell, teach 'em what a, "granfalloon," is.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Given the full history of the Pledge, of which I was not aware, it's good to see that it IS always worse than I think it is.
> 
> I'm afraid that I reject the idea that it's wrong to criticize without Having A Plan. In the first place, a big reason teenagers are so apathetic is our society's systematically lying to them throughout their lives.
> 
> ...


I think there has always been some version of the "American Dream" or what ever "XYZ Dream" idea that people have as youths.  Then the reality hits and you start blaming 'society' for lying to you about something.  Well, maybe it was because you only heard what you wanted to as a teen (Not me though, I was PERFECT ).  Maybe it was because you 'knew everything' but really only 'knew about it' and didnt really 'know it' as well as you thought..... reality bites when it slaps you in the face, but do you really have to blame 'society' since we are all part of it?  I don't think I lie to my son or students.  I tell them the way it is to the best of my ability and as appropriately as possible (the 'deliver' carries it's own message after all).

There is a point where it comes down to "Quite your crying and do something about it" ... or just sit back and point the finger forgetting to include yourself in that equation as well.


----------



## someguy (Sep 28, 2004)

I had to stand for the pledge the national anthem and a moment of silence.  So that was about 5 minutes a day.  180 days are in the school year.  12 grades. Any one want to do the mat on time spent not being educated.
180 hours of my life gone.  
Of course I missed plenty of days for being sick and what not.  Come to think of it I didn't do most of that when I was in the north but I know people who have spent there entire lives in a southern city.  Still there aren't too many people who made it through school never being sick.  
The main point of this rambling is that I lost a lot of time doing those things to teach me to be patriotic.    I'm not really all of that patriotic because of them though.  Actually it probably harmed me in that way more than anything else once I reached middle school and high school.  
I'm very apathetic but I'm not sure if it is because of society.  Hmm maybe I should figure out why I'm apathetic about so much.  Nah don't care so I won't


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 28, 2004)

> If we're lucky, students will come away with a little sense of pride in their Flag, and the Republic for which it stands. I know that's not too popular with the left these days.


Well, MisterMike, I think you would consider me left-of-center, and so far I've been the most ravingly fanatical (at least in this thread) about treating the flag with respect and showing it honor.

Telling people they have to mention GOD in the pledge is something different.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

The most passionate, brilliant defenses of this country and its best traditions I've ever heard have ALL come from "the left," whatever the hell that means these days. Kerry, Mario Cuomo, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, the Kennedys, Mario Savio...there's a long tradition there, and a good one.

And personally, I like Laurie Anderson's discussion of the national anthem...hey, did you know we have the ONLY anthem that's just a bunch of questions? What is that over there? Can you see that?

I also recommend the last song on her, "Strange Angels," album...or David Byrne's "We're on the Road to Nowhere."


"Karen Coyle, 1999 
One of the basic concepts of Bokononism, the secretive island religion of Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle," is that of a granfalloon. A granfalloon is a recognized grouping of people that, underneath it all, has no real meaning. The prototypical granfaloon in Vonnegut's book is Hoosiers: the main character of the book finds himself journeying to an island nation in the company of fellow Indianans, but other than the fact that they hail from the same state they have no significance in each other's lives. 

The opposite of a granfalloon, or at least one alternative, is the karass. These are the people whose lives are entwined in yours in mysterious yet profound ways. Often they are not part of any of your more obvious granfalloons, but in the end it is their presence on this earth that has great influence of the direction of your own life. Recognizing members of your karass is not an easy thing and some you may never identify, but part of the spiritual mission of Bokononists is to celebrate their karass."


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...our society IS lying to kids. Moreover, a lot of what's taught in schools is big fat lies.
> 
> "Abstinence-only," sex ed is a beautiful illustration. Why do we pretend to teach kids about sex, then teach them stuff that they know perfectly well is lies? because of political pressure from the right wing and fundamentalist Protestants.
> 
> ...


Well considering that you are at the higher end of the educational lie spectrum are you including yourself as part of this institutional lie?

Are you distinguishing between 'lie' and 'socialization' or 'cultural indoctrination?'

We can lay out facts and discuss interpretations, trends, patterns and such but to tell me that your interpretation of 'truth' and 'lie' is THE WAY is pretty oppressive in its own right.

I believe in the principles/values and ideals, I promote questioning with the goal of 'leaving it better than you found it' not so that people stop at the emotional point of 'what is the point, it all sucks anyway'.....

where am I lieing to my students, son, or myself?

There is also the age appropriateness of information or the goal/purpose of education that drive content.

The purpose of public education, simplified for this discussion, is to educate children in citizenship/civic responsibility and academic skills that they can use as a foundation to jump into work or college (college more than work now a days).

Educational science covers developmental issues about what a person can generally (though not perfectly accurate by any means) handle at certain ages/grades and the content, skills and volume are built around that idea along with the goal of skills and citizenship.

Where is the lie?

There are parts of history or applications of academics where certain details that are not included because of time limits, developmental ability to absorb/use the information or skill. If something, fact or skill or scenario, isn't going to accomplish the skill or citizenship goal (that does include who to promote and generate personal opinion and productively disagree with the establishment) then it isn't included. It isn't a lie so much as out of alignment with the goal at hand. I wouldn't spend time during martial arts class talking about the politics, personal history (dirty secrets/gossip...) and financial decisions of my instructors/leaders within the organization because the goal/purpose is to teach martial arts. How is that lying to my students there?

If the idea is to build critical thinking skills (in my case) that wouldn't be a lie because I am using current even issues, literature and their own daily experiences to draw examples from for how that skill applies...

I would stay that introducing students to higher education with the tone, message and philosophical position that "your previous teachers all lied to you. The educational system lied to you...but I will show you the truth..." is setting up a pretty strange dynamic for the promotion of 'self directed' and 'self reliant' application of critical thinking.

It isn't so much lieing as 'culturalization' which is what happens in any group orientation/initiation process - whether small or large, classroom or city/state.
If you don't like the 'culture' (which I don't about parts and pieces of it) then you have to form your own way on those things. If it is a really big problem in your opinion, then you can play activist and lobby, vote and support your cause.

I think the real 'lie' is when critics of education form an opinion about education first and then end up proving that opinion with their biased research instead of being truly scientific and observing and forming opinions based on the total package and trends wholistically.

There is the personal motive of 'Publish or Perish' in Academia that can sneak into a persons motives at times....


----------



## Nightingale (Sep 30, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

Get this thread back on topic or I'm locking it.  The topic is the House attempting to block the Supreme Court from ruling on the Pledge.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 30, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> MT MOD NOTE:
> 
> Get this thread back on topic or I'm locking it. The topic is the House attempting to block the Supreme Court from ruling on the Pledge.
> 
> ...


I would be glad if you could either tell me how or just split the thread at the tangent point.  It is an interesting discussion, but, as you said, off topic.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

My point is that the Pledge--and a lot of the education in history, civics, etc. that American students get--rests on some fundamental lies.

To me, the reason the House carried out such a silly vote (which, incidentally, violates the very principles and rules of American government and the separation of powers that they taught me about in school) boils down to trying to protect basic myths about this country and its history.

In other words, they're trying to put a fairy tale beyond question.


----------

