0
   

Is it time to retire the Pledge of Allegiance?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 05:39 am
I could recite a long list of song lyrics I heard wrong, beginning with the country song, San Antonio Rose. I always thought it was, "lies a memory" when in fact it was a "melody." It took about ten years for me to hear it correctly, then I had to argue with an acquaintance about it, because he was hearing "memory."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:03 am
I think there are thoughtful, legitimate reasons to really dislike (and question) standing with a group and reciting an oath.

It's creepy.

A pastor I respected--who was devoted to God and service to his church--refused to recite an oath before the deacons (or whatever smarmy little hypocritical group runs churches from the shadows) and he was fired.

He was a much better human being than all of them.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:24 am
I thought, based on the Declaration of Independence, that our rights as citizens are God given rights, not rights from the State, as some other countries might conceive a citizen's rights. That being the case, any "pledge" should include the mention of God, since from its inception, the U.S. has been involved with the concept of God, as the basis of the uniqueness of the country. In effect, those who do not like the mention of God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, would need to address the "God" in the Declaration of Independence first.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:35 am
Foofie wrote:
I thought, based on the Declaration of Independence, that our rights as citizens are God given rights, not rights from the State, as some other countries might conceive a citizen's rights. That being the case, any "pledge" should include the mention of God, since from its inception, the U.S. has been involved with the concept of God, as the basis of the uniqueness of the country. In effect, those who do not like the mention of God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, would need to address the "God" in the Declaration of Independence first.


That's what you thought. We don't stand in public and recite the Declaration.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:35 am
Foofie wrote:
I thought, based on the Declaration of Independence, that our rights as citizens are God given rights, not rights from the State, as some other countries might conceive a citizen's rights. That being the case, any "pledge" should include the mention of God, since from its inception, the U.S. has been involved with the concept of God, as the basis of the uniqueness of the country. In effect, those who do not like the mention of God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, would need to address the "God" in the Declaration of Independence first.

Ouch. This one could get messy.

What "God" do you think they were talking about when they wrote the Declaration?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:38 am
Declaration of Independence

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:


For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

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

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:41 am
The Declaration is no legal precedent that makes us choose to pledge allegiance to a god.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:43 am
Foofie wrote:
I thought, based on the Declaration of Independence, that our rights as citizens are God given rights, not rights from the State, as some other countries might conceive a citizen's rights. That being the case, any "pledge" should include the mention of God, since from its inception, the U.S. has been involved with the concept of God, as the basis of the uniqueness of the country. In effect, those who do not like the mention of God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, would need to address the "God" in the Declaration of Independence first.

No. The first amendment states that government will not sponsor religion, and schools are a branch of the government.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:46 am
Foofie
Foofie, you might want to read the Declaration again.

"Nature's God" means what?

Is that "God" a tree, a lion, a cloud, ocean water, a used car salesman?

"Their creator" means what?

Did "God" impregnate the woman? Does the husband know he's not the father of his child? Would a DNA test affirm that God was the creator? How did we get a sample of God's DNA for the test? Does "their creator" mean the man and woman whose egg and sperm joined to create the embryo? Was God a peeping tom?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:04 am
Here is the part of the Declaration of Independence I was thinking about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, we had a God given right to set up our country with its citizens enjoying God given rights. It really seems that any pledge to our country might just reflect an ounce of gratitude to any God that gave these forefathers the insight to start our country, rather than just be good Brits.

And, God reflects no specific religion. The word is God, not Jesus, or Yahweh, etc.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:08 am
Again, it sets up no requirement to pledge allegiance to a god of any kind.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:09 am
Foofie
Foofie wrote:
Here is the part of the Declaration of Independence I was thinking about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, we had a God given right to set up our country with its citizens enjoying God given rights. It really seems that any pledge to our country might just reflect an ounce of gratitude to any God that gave these forefathers the insight to start our country, rather than just be good Brits.

And, God reflects no specific religion. The word is God, not Jesus, or Yahweh, etc.


On what athority are you convinced that "Their Creator" means "God"? A person's creator are the female and male egg and sperm that created the embryo, not a "god."

BBB
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:13 am
Re: Foofie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
On what athority are you convinced that "Their Creator" means "God"? A person's creator are the female and male egg and sperm that created the embryo, not a "god."

Nature itself, is also a creator.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:17 am
Re: Foofie
rosborne979 wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
On what athority are you convinced that "Their Creator" means "God"? A person's creator are the female and male egg and sperm that created the embryo, not a "god."

Nature itself, is also a creator.


I'm glad you said that, rosborne. If nature is also a creator, does that mean the evolution in nature created animal, plant, and human life over a period of millions of years?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:21 am
Re: Foofie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Here is the part of the Declaration of Independence I was thinking about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, we had a God given right to set up our country with its citizens enjoying God given rights. It really seems that any pledge to our country might just reflect an ounce of gratitude to any God that gave these forefathers the insight to start our country, rather than just be good Brits.

And, God reflects no specific religion. The word is God, not Jesus, or Yahweh, etc.


On what athority are you convinced that "Their Creator" means "God"? A person's creator are the female and male egg and sperm that created the embryo, not a "god."

BBB


Because in those days that is what "Creator" was a reference to. That is the standard interpretation. If you choose to think that Creator means egg and sperm from a 21st century mindset, that is fine, but I cannot believe that was the intended meaning in the 18th century.

As an aside, too many threads seem to reflect to me (including those that I do not participate in) a mutual admiration society, of sorts, that might just gang up on any dissenting views. Have you not noticed this behavior?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:23 am
I don't believe the guys that wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence really cared about the few whiners that would take offence at the word "God" inserted in the document.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:23 am
I fail to see any ganging up in this thread.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:27 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I fail to see any ganging up in this thread.


And, you live in Texas, not Tejas, for the same reason.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:40 am
Foofie
Foofie, Thomas Jefferson based his draft version of the Declaration on that first developed by George Mason. It was reviewed by several of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were Deists. Please note that George Mason's version specifically refers to "God". Jefferson and the Committee changed that to "Creator."

bbb
George Mason took the lead on this project and his notes below are considered the first draft. To this draft eight additional propositions were added by the committee before it was read to the Convention on May 27, 1776. After debate, and several changes, the Declaration of Rights was passed unanimously on June 11, 1776.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
[First Draft, ca. 20-26 May 1776]

A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the good People of Virginia, assembled in full Convention; and recommended to Posterity as the Basis and Foundation of Government.

That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

That Power is, by God and Nature, vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that Magistrates are their Trustees and Servants, and at all times amenable to them.

That Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common Benefit and Security of the People, Nation, or Community. Of all the various Modes and Forms of Government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest Degree of Happiness and Safety, and is most effectually secured against the Danger of mal-administration. And that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to these Purposes, a Majority of the Community had an indubitable, inalianable and indefeasible Right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such Manner as shall be judged most conducive to the Public Weal.

That no Man, or Set of Men are entitled to exclusive or seperate Emoluments or Privileges from the Community, but in Consideration of public Services; which not being descendible, or hereditary, the Idea of a Man born a Magistrate, a Legislator, or a Judge is unnatural and absurd.

That the legislative and executive Powers of the State shoud be seperate and distinct from the judicative; and that the Members of the two first may be restraind from Oppression, by feeling and participating the Burthens they may lay upon the People; they should, at fixed Periods be reduced to a private Station, and returned, by frequent, certain and regular Elections, into that Body from which they were taken.

That no part of a Man's Property can be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without the Consent of himself, or his legal Representatives; nor are the People bound by any Laws, but such as they have in like Manner assented to for their common Good.

That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a Man hath a right to demand the Cause and Nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers or Witnesses, to call for Evidence in his favour, and to a speedy Tryal by a Jury of his Vicinage; without whose unanimous Consent, he can not be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. And that no Man, except in times of actual Invasion or Insurrection, can be imprisoned upon Suspicion of Crimes against the State, unsupported by Legal Evidence.

That no free Government, or the Blessings of Liberty can be preserved to any People, but by a firm adherence to Justice, Moder- ation, Temperance, Frugality, and Virtue and by frequent Recur- rence to fundamental Principles.

That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Vio- lence; and therefore that all Men should enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate, unless, under Col- our of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other.

That in all controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and Man, the ancient Tryal by Jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

(That the freedom of the press, being the great bulwark of Liberty, can never be restrained but in a despotic government. That laws having a restrospect to crimes, & punishing offences committed before the existence of such laws, are generally danger- ous, and ought to be avoided.

N. B. It is proposed to make some alteration in this last article when reported to the house. Perhaps somewhat like the following That all laws having a retrospect to crimes, & punishing offences committed before the existence of such laws are dangerous, and ought to be avoided, except in cases of great, & evident necessity, when safety of the state absolutely requires them. This is thought to state with more precision the doctrine respecting ex post facto laws & to signify to posterity that it is considered not so much as a law of right, as the great law of necessity, which by the well known maxim is -- allowed to supersede all human institutions.

Another is agreed to in committee condemning the use of general warrants; & one other to prevent the suspension of laws, or the execution of them.

The above clauses, with some small alterations, & the addition of one, or two more, have already been agreed to in the Committee appointed to prepare a declarition of rights; when this business is finished in the house, the committee will proceed to the ordinance of government.

T. L. Lee

The entire document is in George Mason's handwriting, except for the end portion beginning "That the freedom of the press..." which is in Thomas Ludwell Lee's hand.

The original document is in the Mason Papers at the Library of Congress.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:46 am
Foofie wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I fail to see any ganging up in this thread.


And, you live in Texas, not Tejas, for the same reason.


Because there is no ganging up?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:27:14