In my opinion, most of that was unnecessary and improper. Our Founding Fathers simply ordained and established our form of federal Government, to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity and only delegated those powers necessary and proper to achieve that end.
I agree with you to the extent that I subscribe to a tradition of some respect for gods, simply because they are gods and not mortal men. I simply object to the unnecessary and improper use of the State for that political end, by establishing that form of Religion even with our First Amendment and Commandment from our Founding Fathers.
Our pledge of allegiance clearly describes what is meant by our republic. Therefore, our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land is not an abstraction.
If someone doesn't deserve them, why would you want to defend them for that person? Soldiers don't even fight for their own rights, must less the rights of others. Get back to me when the state has shrunk to the point that it no longer puts into cages anyone but those who have aggressed against others. I don't see you fighting the government when it locks people up for ingesting prohibited plant substances, so I don't see how you can claim to fight on behalf of the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of others. I'm happy to fight for my own rights, but I would never claim that fighting whomever the state tells me to fight is a defense of liberty for anyone, particularly if it's far from US shores or involves caging innocent people.
Well, it does call for pledging to an object - a flag - which borders on idolatry. Why would I claim loyalty to a piece of cloth? I would also find the term "indivisible" to violate the terms of liberty which requires that every individual be free to choose his associations as is his natural right. So, either we have liberty and justice for all, or we have indivisibility and tyranny to protect it.
From one perspective, our Founding Fathers were wise enough to not claim idolatry to be any form of secular or temporal or, especially, Civil Sin under the United States. In case you missed the point, our pledge also specifies our republic as an object of our allegiance. So, from that perspective, I am not sure what you are claiming, other than a loyalty to a subjective value of morals that may be based on Religion, and not our federal or State supreme laws of the land. Indivisible, from my understanding, means that the several States may not secede without a federal amendment providing for that recourse. Individuals already have the natural right to associate, even on an at will basis.
They were also wise enough not to demand an oath of loyalty, only an oath of office. These were men all of whom, most likely, had pledged allegiance and sworn solemn oaths to a monarch. And, as Englishmen, took that oath very seriously. So why no oath in the Constitution for each citizen to take in order to remain a citizen? I am not religious. Idolatry is to render something sacred, and I don't render anything sacred except the life of other human beings and their natural right of self-ownership. I don't recognize the Constitution as the Supreme law. I follow the laws that I must in order to avoid being put in a cage, but I long ago withdrew my consent to be governed by the United States government and any other body which enforces injustice and repeated violations of life and liberty as a matter of course. Exactly. The people of any given state are not at liberty to dissociate from the other states. Why should I pledge to an viewpoint not in line with the principles of liberty? Yes, they have the right. If they did not, then it would not be a natural right. However, the natural right of association is violated frequently by the current government and not recognized all that well by the Constitution other than for religion and freedom of assembly. There are many laws that prevent individuals from choosing their own associations, particularly in their businesses. We do not have freedom of political association. I am sure that in you response to this post you have already laughed at my stance of withdrawal of consent, yet I am merely expressing my natural right of association to be free from political control.
In my opinion, our pledge of allegiance is more "cognitively sonant" within a culture of militia service concerning the security of a free State of our republic. It makes it more difficult to not recognize the flag of the militia of the United States. Because, then, what you claim of forms of idolatry would be more applicable since there would be no Just cause as it relates to individual liberty and our form of federal and republican Government. It could depend on the subjective value of morals. Some people may feel differently regarding our republic and its flag. How does your perspective account for the necessity of a well regulated militia to the security of a free State, and the organic power of a State to compel service in case of need? Our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated our "sacred" right to petition for redress of grievances under the First Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. Our pledge does not deny or disparage individual liberty, only that former States' right. I am not sure why you believe you do not have the freedom of political association. Can you elaborate?
To the OP, if the school attempts to punish you further, simply say any further reprimand and you will contact the ACLU. If they do continue any reprimand, follow through by contacting the ACLU.
The country works for the people, not the other way around.... If you love unquestioning loyalty for the state, maybe you should reform the Nazi Party....Fascist..
How does an Establishment of Religion in our pledge of Allegiance to our our republic and its supreme law of the land, demonstrate any form of "unquestioning loyalty for the state"?
it forces people to acknowledge the Christian god. Many people are not Christian. And also, I am against the pledge of alliegence, because the people do not owe the nation alliegence, it's the other way around. The nation belongs to the people.
Why didn't you do the pledge of allegiance without stating under God? Did you draw attention to the fact that you were not saying the pledge, or did the teacher notice you no doing it? I do think it is wrong for schools to force kids to do the pledge of allegiance.
Then why claim that some individuals believe they may be doing that if it is not specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land?
By supreme law of the land do you mean the constitution? Cause the poledge of alliegence is not in the constitution it was written in the 1900's as a way to indoctrinate school children into beleiveing that they owe some type of loyalty to the United States of America, when it's actually the other way around.
I don't recall the word "Christian" being anywhere in the pledge. Under God is a generic expression which doesn't refer to any religion. Perhaps an atheist could have a beef, but he might be more concerned with the price of bread. As for me, I'm OK with the "under God" part. The part I'm NOT OK with is this part > "..with liberty and justice for all". As far as I see it, we have liberty for the rich, and justice for not really anybody.
Still, it promotes the idea that the states recognizes religion.....It does not....It singles out athiests and agnostics.
A government is not alive so it cannot owe anything. People alive today owe the NATION of American and all its long ago citizens that fought for the rights we have today. All those people that were part, parcel and totality of the UNITED STATES. When we say the pledge we are admitting out debt to those that fought for the rights we have, be it in the 17, 18, 19 hundreds or today in the 21st century. We owe everything we have, life, liberty, and home and food to those that fought for our rights, with blood, honor and even with pen and paper. That is what the pledge is about. It is a pledge to continue the fight, to take responsibility for the future generations and to make the USA the best darn place we can make it. I say the pledge, the way I learned it in 1952 when it did not have "under god in it". I love and honor and have an abiding allegiance to this nation and the people that made it what it is and gave me the freedom I have. The nation has problems and my pledge forces me to accept a responsibility to make those problems go away, at least to the best of my ability to do so. The Pledge is the way I say thank you to the hundreds of millions that lived and died to make this nation I live in. It is the way I propose to pick up their torch and continue working to make this nation the best in the world IN ALL WAYS, not just in some.
I am not sure what you are trying to explain. Our republic and its supreme law of the land is what our pledge refers to. The militia of the United States may be called upon to faithfully execute the laws of a State or the Union and to ensure its domestic tranquility and security.
I agree to disagree that that the phrase "under God" does not establish a form of Religion. It must establish some religion to worship in a manner prescribed by the Establishment of a given and specific religion.
That's ridiculous. The word "God" simply refers to a supreme being which could be the God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any religion. It is 100% UNspecific.
I swear you have to be a computer program that just takes random catch phrases and jumbles them together. What in hell does your last sentence have to do with ANYTHING in this thread???
