The Pledge of allegiance

Bobby · Post by **Bobby** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:16 pm

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?
[/i]

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:50 pm

Crixus wrote:As to my argument's orientation to the legitimating of the state, I must reiterate that I am not making this argument as an anarchist; I am making it as one who finds attempts to indoctrinate the public as contemptuous, and unnecessary in a truly free society. If justice and liberty truly existed in these United States, then they would be self evident, and not require the proclamation of their existence by school children in order to secure their belief in them.

Now this I can agree with. If we were talking about high school. At this age, children require knowledge from the top down. If this is indoctrination into the American system, then so be it. As you say, I am happy with my chains.

I am however tired of debating whether or not I am allowed to hold a legitimate opinion on this subject due to my being an anarchist. As I am human, and live under this state, so my opinion is as valid as yours; should you wish to disagree with it then you must address the tenets of my argument, not my overall political bent. If you chose to dismiss my argument simply on the basis of my being an anarchist, then you do so out of unabashed prejudice, and not by any logical discrediting.

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't dismissing you because you are an anarchist. You state your case based on anarchist views (please see below). I claim that my view is more legitimate than yours not because you are an anarchist, but because my argument is based on an existing system and yours isn't. Not that it hasn't existed in the past or may exist somewhere, but that it exists in this particular argument. I'm not saying that "My side won, so I have all the rights." What I am saying is that your objection to the pledge is based on the corruptive, manipulative, abhorrent government that put it in place. Your objection would be to anything that promotes this government.

Your argument -- correct me if I'm wrong -- comes from a belief that this government (not the current government, per se, but the system) is an undue burden on the populace. My argument does not come from the same type of view. Religion is not an undue burden on the populace, in my view, it is merely a burden that should not be spread by the state. I am not saying that you do not have a point to make (outside of your belief system). I am saying that my argument is more legitimate than yours.

As I said earlier public schools can exist in absence of the state, they in fact have, in Spain public schools were funded by the public, organized by voluntary associations, all minus state interference, and under an anarchist premise. Therefore your statement follows the false presumption that the state must exist to organize the public to fund schools.

Actually, what I said was that if you remove the state, because public schools are part of the state you would have to build up a new education system. I am not familiar with anarchist schools in Spain, but theoretically I could see how it would be done. All this is neither here nor there. We are talking about existing public schools in this country. My point was that the current public school system is a state appendage, and we are debating about how the current public school system should operate as such.

I want to thank you for introducing me to the topic of anarchy in Spain, by the way. I'm doing some reading about it now, and I find it fascinating.

ST88 wrote:You cannot condemn an entire system for the corruption of some of its members.
I cannot? Why can I not condemn a system that seems to allow miscreants to be in constant control of it? Perhaps in a society bereft of bad people our system would work fine, but then in that society dictatorship would be just as lovely, however in this society we have many maladjusted people and they are the ones who tend to gain strength in our system. Therefore I will condemn this system; it is corrupt now, as it has been from the start, and its sense of justice and liberty is perverse. I feel your assertion is a delusion for apologists of failed or debauched systems, and I reject any argument that could be, or has been, used in defense of Communist China, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge or any other despotic and murderous regime.

No system will work perfectly if people are not basically good. However, if you believe that our system breeds or encourages miscreants by its very nature, then we are at an impasse.

To clarify, I do not, and I don't see anywhere in that paragraph where I did, base my argument on the legitimacy of the state.

My argument is that, a state that is not corrupt does not need for its youth to recite a praise of the liberty and justice, and the value of unity within. So, under the assumption that the reasons are not corrupt, what purpose does the pledge serve?

from earlier posts:

Crixus wrote:I find all states to be vile, unnecessary institutions that perpetuate war and havoc in a fashion unrivaled by any other institution that man has dared create, a distant second being the corporation.... Suffice to say that while you disagree with whether or not we are "under God", I happen to disagree with everything else, regardless of who is in "power", I find the ruling of one man by another to be a repulsive and unacceptable practice.

Crixus wrote:My ultimate goal is freedom of the masses, and I see the pledge and all other forms of misleading propaganda as being an impediment to that goal. It is for the same reason that I oppose advertisement to children, or Hitler youth, or any other coercive method used for the prorogation of a flawed, or inherently destructive institution, through the manipulation of children. The pledge is merely a cog in the immense machinery of indoctrination that the state uses to control its subjects; if one cog can be removed then that is one step, no matter how small, closer to liberation.

Your earlier assertions that you "find all states to be vile" and that the pledge is an "impediment" to the freedom of the masses is what I was referring to. You might see where I was able to equate this with anarchist ideals. I admit that the word "legitimacy" added to your position was my doing. However, I feel that it is a legitimate addition because of the implications of the above statements. I should be able to infer that you do not find the state legitimate based on phrases like "Hitler youth", "coercive method", "inherently destructive institution", and "control its subjects" regardless of your political affiliation.

I agree that there is no need for the state to force its youth to recite slogans. The burden of "need" (if I can say that), is on the children, not on the state (though the state does have an interest). In my view, this is part of freedom and democracy, that we must have constant vigilance. That the state sponsors this kind of thinking is astoundingly enlightened. This is our society, and here's how it's supposed to work. If anything, it helps us recognize if there is someone in power who's abusing the system.

ST88 wrote:I stand by my assertion that the pledge is not manipulative, though "influence" is not an objectionable term for me.
As well I am sure manipulative would not be objectionable to you if I were referring to a potter and his relationship to clay. However in this context I am speaking of the influence over citizens that the pledge is meant to have, and if you do not find that objectionable then why do you care if "under God" is removed or not?

As I stated before, "under God" is the only manipulative phrase in the pledge. Its influence has nothing to do with the state or what is required of us if we live in the state.

I should say that I do not see how further argument on this subject will lead us anywhere but into the vagaries of rhetoric. Essentially, we are at an impasse on almost all points. We each have our views and we are now merely attempting to justify them against one another. We both agree that "under God" is utterly unnecessary and potentially harmful, which was the purpose of this thread. Gradatim vincimus.

Crixus · Post by **Crixus** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:46 pm

(Having been away for the last few weeks, and having had less than expected access to the internet, I haven't had the chance to check up on this board, so my apologies for the belated response. P.S. Congratulations on your ascent to moderator status.)

ST88 wrote:
Crixus wrote: As to my argument's orientation to the legitimating of the state, I must reiterate that I am not making this argument as an anarchist; I am making it as one who finds attempts to indoctrinate the public as contemptuous, and unnecessary in a truly free society. If justice and liberty truly existed in these United States, then they would be self evident, and not require the proclamation of their existence by school children in order to secure their belief in them.
Now this I can agree with. If we were talking about high school. At this age, children require knowledge from the top down. If this is indoctrination into the American system, then so be it. As you say, I am happy with my chains.

It is of course my position that the pledge of allegiance is a systemic mechanism, the express purpose of which being indoctrinating the youth of the nation to believe that freedom and liberty are explicitly provided and protected by the U.S.A. A perception which assumes that those who do not support the nation are therefore enemies of freedom and liberty, a symptom whihc seems prevalent in both the Democratic and Republican parties as they both like to label their opponents, partisan or geographical, such.

This I see as a decline of the values expressed by many of the founders of the nation and believe that such devices are only necessary for, and generally only used by, nations that need to convince their populous that they poses some quality which in reality eludes them. Rome had a very similar ideal of freedom and republic, the assumed existence of which led those people to readily malign Brutus as a traitor, and blindly forfeit those same values to a dictator.

Now whether or not you are happy with that path, or even if you disagree with my interpretation, explain to me why it is that you find the pledge of allegiance to be a healthy or necessary thing for a nation born of the enlightenment and free thought; a nation that claims to holds freedom and liberty as ultimate virtues?

ST88 wrote: I thought I made it clear that I wasn't dismissing you because you are an anarchist. You state your case based on anarchist views (please see below). I claim that my view is more legitimate than yours not because you are an anarchist, but because my argument is based on an existing system and yours isn't. Not that it hasn't existed in the past or may exist somewhere, but that it exists in this particular argument. I'm not saying that "My side won, so I have all the rights." What I am saying is that your objection to the pledge is based on the corruptive, manipulative, abhorrent government that put it in place. Your objection would be to anything that promotes this government.

To clarify; my objection to the pledge is that it sets in place the assumption that freedom and liberty exist in the nation. I believe that to be the very purpose for its introduction into the schoolhouse, and I believe that the packaging of such preconceptions with public education is an incredibly deceptive and dangerous practice for any organization desiring to attain or preserve freedom. Now we may disagree on whether the United States are truly free, that's not to say that I think there are many places more free, but that is not the origin of my argument. My argument is if we value freedom to any degree, such a practice is dangerous and should be abolished.

ST88 wrote:Actually, what I said was that if you remove the state, because public schools are part of the state you would have to build up a new education system. I am not familiar with anarchist schools in Spain, but theoretically I could see how it would be done. All this is neither here nor there. We are talking about existing public schools in this country. My point was that the current public school system is a state appendage, and we are debating about how the current public school system should operate as such.

Well, I think that this is perhaps a difference in paradigm, since I do not see the public schools as an appendage of the state, but rather an institution of intellectual inheritance that has been usurped by the state for its own interests. Because public education existed long before states, I feel it improper to view it as a subordinate proceeding from the state, and as such can hardly recognize the state's right to do with it as it pleases.

ST88 wrote:No system will work perfectly if people are not basically good. However, if you believe that our system breeds or encourages miscreants by its very nature, then we are at an impasse.

It is my belief that corrupt people tend to seek power, and that most virtuous people tend shun power as a corrupting force, or do not desire power because of moral convictions or other reservations. Assuming that it is more often the vain who seek power; It would naturally follow that it is those same people who tend to acquire it, in any system that offers it. Systems aside, it is rarely the humble, kindly person who seeks positions of status and pomp. If this is where we are finding disagreement then indeed we are at an impasse.

However if you took me to mean that this system explicitly breeds corruption then allow me to restate my intentions. Our system, as any other system that offers power to the few, is inherently flawed because power attracts those who seek it, as a prostitute attracts those who seek prostitutes, or excrement attracts a fly. Because of this tendency, those who desire power tend to be in positions of power, and because of this fetish for power they are often driven to ruthless means to protect it.

ST88 wrote:Your earlier assertions that you "find all states to be vile" and that the pledge is an "impediment" to the freedom of the masses is what I was referring to. You might see where I was able to equate this with anarchist ideals. I admit that the word "legitimacy" added to your position was my doing. However, I feel that it is a legitimate addition because of the implications of the above statements. I should be able to infer that you do not find the state legitimate based on phrases like "Hitler youth", "coercive method", "inherently destructive institution", and "control its subjects" regardless of your political affiliation.

You are quite free to equate my opinions with anarchist ideals, however the first quote of mine there, was actually directed at dispelling the notion that, "Once you topple the power base, you're still left with the Constitution". Because it was important move past that preconception, in order to proceed with any intellectual honesty. This is not an argument against the pledge, but rather an attempt to open all doors, because clearly there are other forms of government than the U.S. Constitutional system.

As to the second quote I see nothing that necessitates me being an anarchist, in the assertion that the pledge is an impediment to freedom. Nor that such an assertion is excludes a constitutionalist, communist, republican, democrat or persons of any other political bent.

ST88 wrote:I agree that there is no need for the state to force its youth to recite slogans. The burden of "need" (if I can say that), is on the children, not on the state (though the state does have an interest). In my view, this is part of freedom and democracy, that we must have constant vigilance. That the state sponsors this kind of thinking is astoundingly enlightened. This is our society, and here's how it's supposed to work. If anything, it helps us recognize if there is someone in power who's abusing the system.

I don't think that the children have any need to recite a pledge, and burdening them so is not only unnecessary but I'm quite certain detrimental. It would be wonderful if people took from the pledge that, "This is our society, and here's how it's supposed to work." just as it would be wonderful if capitalism were a meritocracy, but neither, I believe, are the case. To teach people the values of our society we must be sure that they understand the operation of our society, but even more than that they must understand what is being said. It is almost always the case that children begin to recite this prior to understanding, and as they begin understanding it they have already been taught to believe it to be true, so, however it began, it becomes a wonderful example of preparatory indoctrination. First say it, then believe it; understand it later.

ST88 wrote:As I stated before, "under God" is the only manipulative phrase in the pledge. Its influence has nothing to do with the state or what is required of us if we live in the state.

I should say that I do not see how further argument on this subject will lead us anywhere but into the vagaries of rhetoric. Essentially, we are at an impasse on almost all points. We each have our views and we are now merely attempting to justify them against one another. We both agree that "under God" is utterly unnecessary and potentially harmful, which was the purpose of this thread. Gradatim vincimus.

Well, I do not see how saying "under God" is any more damaging that saying "under pop can" or "under doormat", either the entire thing is manipulative or it is all arbitrary and the debate is pointless. I for one believe that the entirety of the pledge is manipulative, but I'd sooner agree that it is meaningless drivel, than to hold up one phrase as exclusively manipulative where the rest is harmless. And if that is indeed an impasse then I cannot help but to feel discouraged.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:00 pm

Crixus wrote:This I see as a decline of the values expressed by many of the founders of the nation and believe that such devices are only necessary for, and generally only used by, nations that need to convince their populous that they poses some quality which in reality eludes them.

Now whether or not you are happy with that path, or even if you disagree with my interpretation, explain to me why it is that you find the pledge of allegiance to be a healthy or necessary thing for a nation born of the enlightenment and free thought; a nation that claims to holds freedom and liberty as ultimate virtues?

It puts liberty in context. That is, "liberty" is a concept that only exists within the framework of the government that grants it. This is in contrast to other forms of government or other countries where "liberty" is a concept that only exists outside the country. In order to live in this society, we naturally make some comprimises with our freedom. We do not have the right to own nuclear weapons, for example. We ask the government to make sure that no one else can own such things either.

You ask if the pledge is necessary. No, it really isn't. But it's a good idea because it serves as an introduction to how our society operates. And, yeah, it gets spoken without a lot of thought put behind it by most children. But at some point, they're going to look at the words and realize what it is they've been saying. They are words more powerful than any political leader or party.

I don't agree with your assertion that the writers of the Constitution meant for there to be some other kind of republic than the one we have now. Liberty and justice must be tempered by responsibility: responsibility of government and responsibility of citizenry. The Constitution is not some epistolatory record of the past and how this country was founded, like some stale blog; it is instead a written promise of government that it isn't allowed to abuse its citizens even though it has the capability to do so, amended and interpreted by every age as needed. This is the deal we make with the government every day.

That there has been a recent decline of the kinds of rights spelled out in the Constitution is a matter for a different debate.

Crixus wrote:To clarify; my objection to the pledge is that it sets in place the assumption that freedom and liberty exist in the nation. I believe that to be the very purpose for its introduction into the schoolhouse, and I believe that the packaging of such preconceptions with public education is an incredibly deceptive and dangerous practice for any organization desiring to attain or preserve freedom.

If we valued absolute freedom as a society, then I would agree with you. But that is just not true. Absolute freedom is untenable. We must have certain rules in order to be able to live with one another. If we were all Ghandis and Buddhas then I would say, fine, let's all live in peace and harmony, and then let's tear down all the prisons.

I took the time you were away (welcome back, by the way

) to read about the Spanish Anarchist experiment, and I was struck by how similar it was to the situation in Revolutionary France, where the cause was just but the result was as much terror as the previous regime. It seems like there were a good number of reasonable people who were willing to make a go of it, not unlike yourself, I would suspect, but that some corrupted members helped to destroy its vision in the face of a Fascist threat.

I do not subscribe to the view that man is basically a decent creature. I think that people will do whatever they think they can get away with, whether that's in terms of a legal justice system or some world view of cosmic accounting or as pure id-driven hedonism. As such, I believe that the rule of law is the best way of managing the liberty of individuals.

Crixus wrote:It is my belief that corrupt people tend to seek power, and that most virtuous people tend shun power as a corrupting force, or do not desire power because of moral convictions or other reservations.... Our system, as any other system that offers power to the few, is inherently flawed because power attracts those who seek it, as a prostitute attracts those who seek prostitutes, or excrement attracts a fly. Because of this tendency, those who desire power tend to be in positions of power, and because of this fetish for power they are often driven to ruthless means to protect it.

I think you are wrong about this. Not about power fetishes, but about corrupt vs. virtuous persons. This paints too broad a brush over the human race. There are all kinds of politicians. None are all-corrupt, nor are any all-virtuous. The desire to be a leader, itself, is not a vice. I'll agree that "power corrupts", but not for the reasons that this phrase was initially coined.

The term corruption has been bandied about here, and I'd like to address this before I go on. When I speak of corruption, it is of the kind that can be legally defined, without any mental or spiritual context. In this way, the corruption that occurs is incidental to the system. That is, it is not necessary in order for the system to exist, as you seem to be implying. I do not subscribe to the view that "virtuous" people will never seek office. Nor are the people who gravitate towards positions of leadership necessarily corrupt.

But as for the power fetishes, that's a funny way to put it, but I essentially agree with you. People who do not wish to have leadership positions should not be in them. But to distinguish between those who wish power and those who don't is not an exercise in determining who is a psychopath and who is marginalized. People are born different, they have different motivations, different agendas, and different ways of dealing with people. When we elect someone to Congress, we should hope to want someone who's going to make the best deal possible with the rest of the electorate, as the interests of one part of the nation are weighed against the interests of another part.

The reason power corrupts is that when people discover what actions are possible, they tend to gravitate towards the actions that pay more or that offer the better rewards. Often, the biggest payoffs are the illegal ones, so you have to decide if it's worth it or not to risk exposure as a fraud or a felon in order to get what you want (e.g., drug-dealing). This is true no matter what system of government you put in place, even if that government is effectively no government at all. The check on this power has to be the vigilance of the citizens against all forms of corruption. It's just the way a society works.

Crixus wrote:I don't think that the children have any need to recite a pledge, and burdening them so is not only unnecessary but I'm quite certain detrimental. It would be wonderful if people took from the pledge that, "This is our society, and here's how it's supposed to work." just as it would be wonderful if capitalism were a meritocracy, but neither, I believe, are the case.

As an aside -- Capitalism is based on merit. The market decides what has merit and then rewards it by throwing money at it. If you mean that our system of capitalism, as it exists now, has anti-merit flaws, then I am with you. Pure capitalism, in my opinion, is harmful to society.

Now I'm curious. If that's not the message that people actually take from the pledge, what message are they taking from it?

Crixus wrote:To teach people the values of our society we must be sure that they understand the operation of our society, but even more than that they must understand what is being said. It is almost always the case that children begin to recite this prior to understanding, and as they begin understanding it they have already been taught to believe it to be true, so, however it began, it becomes a wonderful example of preparatory indoctrination. First say it, then believe it; understand it later.

I do not dispute this. In fact, this was one of my previous statements.

Crixus wrote:
ST88 wrote:I should say that I do not see how further argument on this subject will lead us anywhere but into the vagaries of rhetoric. Essentially, we are at an impasse on almost all points.
Well, I do not see how saying "under God" is any more damaging that saying "under pop can" or "under doormat", either the entire thing is manipulative or it is all arbitrary and the debate is pointless. I for one believe that the entirety of the pledge is manipulative, but I'd sooner agree that it is meaningless drivel, than to hold up one phrase as exclusively manipulative where the rest is harmless. And if that is indeed an impasse then I cannot help but to feel discouraged.

Again, it all depends on your definition of "manipulative". I do not think that any of it, including "Under God" is meaningless drivel. It all has meaning for me. If you definition of manipulative is "introducing a concept that is not inherent in the human species" then, sure, it's manipulative. However, if your definition is "causing someone to perform an action that would otherwise be against his/her will", then I have to disagree. At this age of children, you could argue that teaching arithmetic is manipulative.

Crixus · Post by **Crixus** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:35 pm

ST88 wrote:It puts liberty in context. That is, "liberty" is a concept that only exists within the framework of the government that grants it. This is in contrast to other forms of government or other countries where "liberty" is a concept that only exists outside the country. In order to live in this society, we naturally make some comprimises with our freedom. We do not have the right to own nuclear weapons, for example. We ask the government to make sure that no one else can own such things either.

You ask if the pledge is necessary. No, it really isn't. But it's a good idea because it serves as an introduction to how our society operates. And, yeah, it gets spoken without a lot of thought put behind it by most children. But at some point, they're going to look at the words and realize what it is they've been saying. They are words more powerful than any political leader or party.

Clearly, we disagree. I do not believe that the pledge instill a sense of entitlement to the values it professes, but an expectance that those things exist, no matter how far from reality that may be. I've seen people smashed in the face for protesting, because clearly we have freedom and liberty; so what right does one have to exercise them? I've heard of people imprisoned with outrageous sentences for political acts, but never have I heard of someone being released or a sentence diminished on the grounds of our entitlement to freedoms and liberties. No, I've never see an example of this entitlement being exercised that didn't end in demoralization and disillusionment. I have however seen the destructive nature of blind expectance, and am reminded of its power every time I hear the phrase "love it or leave it", it almost become a motto for the new banana republic.

ST88 wrote:I don't agree with your assertion that the writers of the Constitution meant for there to be some other kind of republic than the one we have now. Liberty and justice must be tempered by responsibility: responsibility of government and responsibility of citizenry. The Constitution is not some epistolatory record of the past and how this country was founded, like some stale blog; it is instead a written promise of government that it isn't allowed to abuse its citizens even though it has the capability to do so, amended and interpreted by every age as needed. This is the deal we make with the government every day.

That there has been a recent decline of the kinds of rights spelled out in the Constitution is a matter for a different debate.

Well, whether or not some would have preferred a different government was not really my point, though I think its clear that the founders had very different minds on what government should look like. What I was saying is essentially that, had the founders had thought a pledge was a useful thing for children to recite, they would have created one. Since they did not, my argument is that they would not have wish it, at least most of them, and so its existence illustrates a decline in the ideals which they held.

ST88 wrote:If we valued absolute freedom as a society, then I would agree with you. But that is just not true. Absolute freedom is untenable. We must have certain rules in order to be able to live with one another. If we were all Ghandis and Buddhas then I would say, fine, let's all live in peace and harmony, and then let's tear down all the prisons.

I don't think that this has anything to do with absolutes; it is a choice of whether one prefers that institutional brainwashing techniques be used on children universally in the American school system. Regardless of the ends, the mean fail to justify them.

ST88 wrote:I took the time you were away (welcome back, by the way ) to read about the Spanish Anarchist experiment, and I was struck by how similar it was to the situation in Revolutionary France, where the cause was just but the result was as much terror as the previous regime. It seems like there were a good number of reasonable people who were willing to make a go of it, not unlike yourself, I would suspect, but that some corrupted members helped to destroy its vision in the face of a Fascist threat.

Yes, well it was an unfortunate thing that while the anarchist collectives made up a large part of the industry and revolutionary militias, a large portion were authoritarian socialists and communists, this supported by the soviet union being the only real power to send any aid. So eventually it came to a point where the authoritarians felt it necessary to do away with the anarchists in order to protect their own concept of post revolutionary Spain. However to my knowledge none of the anarchist collectives were involved in that, and most managed to function shiningly, especially considering the conditions.

ST88 wrote: I do not subscribe to the view that man is basically a decent creature. I think that people will do whatever they think they can get away with, whether that's in terms of a legal justice system or some world view of cosmic accounting or as pure id-driven hedonism. As such, I believe that the rule of law is the best way of managing the liberty of individuals.

It's a very peripheral matter, but I disagree. I think man is basically good, doing only what he feels necessary for his own existence, but when society pits him against his fellows he readily becomes the opportunist, out for his own profit.

ST88 wrote:I think you are wrong about this. Not about power fetishes, but about corrupt vs. virtuous persons. This paints too broad a brush over the human race. There are all kinds of politicians. None are all-corrupt, nor are any all-virtuous. The desire to be a leader, itself, is not a vice. I'll agree that "power corrupts", but not for the reasons that this phrase was initially coined.

The term corruption has been bandied about here, and I'd like to address this before I go on. When I speak of corruption, it is of the kind that can be legally defined, without any mental or spiritual context. In this way, the corruption that occurs is incidental to the system. That is, it is not necessary in order for the system to exist, as you seem to be implying. I do not subscribe to the view that "virtuous" people will never seek office. Nor are the people who gravitate towards positions of leadership necessarily corrupt.

Well, I wasn't speaking absolutely, which is why I made a point to say that it is a tendency amongst them, and I believe that it is. As to corruption, when I speak of it in this sense it is of anyone who takes up a public position for their own ends, and not for the public good. Which I believe applies to most politicians; it would be deluded to believe that the majority of politicians are selfless humanitarians.

ST88 wrote:But as for the power fetishes, that's a funny way to put it, but I essentially agree with you. People who do not wish to have leadership positions should not be in them. But to distinguish between those who wish power and those who don't is not an exercise in determining who is a psychopath and who is marginalized. People are born different, they have different motivations, different agendas, and different ways of dealing with people. When we elect someone to Congress, we should hope to want someone who's going to make the best deal possible with the rest of the electorate, as the interests of one part of the nation are weighed against the interests of another part.

The reason power corrupts is that when people discover what actions are possible, they tend to gravitate towards the actions that pay more or that offer the better rewards. Often, the biggest payoffs are the illegal ones, so you have to decide if it's worth it or not to risk exposure as a fraud or a felon in order to get what you want (e.g., drug-dealing). This is true no matter what system of government you put in place, even if that government is effectively no government at all. The check on this power has to be the vigilance of the citizens against all forms of corruption. It's just the way a society works.

Once again I totally disagree, I believe that in human hands power is corruption and thus we must seek to abolish it from human society.

ST88 wrote:As an aside -- Capitalism is based on merit. The market decides what has merit and then rewards it by throwing money at it. If you mean that our system of capitalism, as it exists now, has anti-merit flaws, then I am with you. Pure capitalism, in my opinion, is harmful to society.

I was speaking of all forms of capitalism, not just market capitalism, and by meritocracy I meant the treatment of labor, that is how capitalism attempts to portray itself.

ST88 wrote:Now I'm curious. If that's not the message that people actually take from the pledge, what message are they taking from it?

You claim that the pledge implies an ideal for us to live up to, however the pledge says "with liberty and justice for all", as if it is the natural reality, not "seeking liberty and justice for all" as if it is an ideal to be sought. The implication of which is that the nation has liberty and justice and need not strive to attain it. Which in effect blinds people to the reality and forces the "my country right or wrong" mentality.

ST88 wrote:I do not dispute this. In fact, this was one of my previous statements.

You must disagree with it in some way or else you would agree that the pledge should not be used as a bludgeon against the minds of school children.

ST88 wrote:Again, it all depends on your definition of "manipulative". I do not think that any of it, including "Under God" is meaningless drivel. It all has meaning for me. If you definition of manipulative is "introducing a concept that is not inherent in the human species" then, sure, it's manipulative. However, if your definition is "causing someone to perform an action that would otherwise be against his/her will", then I have to disagree. At this age of children, you could argue that teaching arithmetic is manipulative.

It is manipulative because the method is one of manipulation. There is no reason to have school children recite something everyday for 13 years unless you intend to so ingrain it in their psyche, without their approval, that even as adults they have a difficult time seeing reality for what it is. Now even if the claims the pledge makes are reality then the methods is devious and ill-conceived. We do not need brainwashing to persuade children at schools, if we want children to learn of liberty then teach them what it is; teach, that is what schools are suppose to do.

Esoteric_Illuminati · Post by **Esoteric_Illuminati** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:54 am

Forgive me if I reply specifically to the first post in this thread. I'm new to this forum and I only scanned the subsequent discussion here. From what I read though, it does not seem to be hitting on what lies on the heart of this discussion, and that is the rights-based theory behind the Constitution. I've seen posts ranging from Anarchism to Totalitarianism to the French Revolution to the Australiain Affirmation. These all seem to be red herrings to me. I just began a new topic regarding the pledge on a different forum, so I'd like to share with ya'll my argument I posted there:

First order is to understand the theory behind the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights (BoR), which serves as the basis for which people determine the Constitutionality of these things.

I believe the Constitution, namely the BoR, is predicated on a rights-based theory. This theory is found specifically in the Declaration of Independence (DoI). In the 2nd paragraph of the DoI, we find the moral and political theory on which our country was founded. That theory states that the government must secure for its citizens certain rights (i.e. life and liberty). This is affirmed in both the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

Now let's discuss what exactly a rights-based theory means. We know that with rights, obligations necessarily exist. For example: I have a right to life. Therefore, you have an obligation to not violate this right of mine and kill me. Furthermore, the government has an obligation to secure and to some extent protect my right to life. It is a rights-based theory and with rights come obligations. I get rights, the government and people in society get obligations. That's the general idea of how this theory works.

With that understood, we can now think of laws and legal theory based on these rights and obligations. When the government creates laws, they place our rights and obligations in a "legal" context. Laws (aside from public laws) are literally legal obligations. They tell you what you can or can't do. You can or can't do these things because other people have rights and if you do act X which is against the law, the idea is that you are violating the rights of other people.

Now consider the BoR, specifically the 1st Amendment, within the context of the rights-based legal theory:

"Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The 1st Amendment establishes a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in the form of a right. So if it's a right, whats the obligation? Well just look at the Amendment itself - "Congress shall make no law" - We can rephrase it within it's own context of the rights-based theory - "Congress has the obligation to not create any (law) legal obligations establishing a religion." Now this is obviously what the 1st Amendment was intended for. What does Congress do? They create laws to protect our rights. Laws are the obligations upon people in society. So we can simply call them legal obligations.

It does NOT logically follow that the framers intended to completely censor God from society and the public. I mean, they clearly establish a freedom of religion too! This presupposes that they never believed that God ought to be removed completely from the state. Instead, they wanted to prevent any religion that possibly held a status quo in any given state from establishing laws/legal obligations out of their religious doctrines.

So when you consider the framer's intent and the context of which it is written (rights-based theory in DoI), you see that the 1st Amendment forbids any legal obligations founded by religion. The pledge does not impose any obligations at all, so it is not unconstitutional.

If this argument isn't enough...let's throw in an additional twist:

The Constitution, specifically Bill of Rights, was created to establish a limit to power of the government, right? Our (BoR) rights place obligations (specifically restrictive duties) on the government in order to limit the government's power.
The question then follows: How do the non-obligatory words of "under God" in the pledge make the government more powerful?
Remember the exegesis of the Constitution is to prevent powerful/tyrannical government. We thus find the liberal eisegesis of the Constitution is to censor God, not restrict governmental powers.

There exists a right to freely exercise religion in the state. There also exists an obligation to prevent any such religion from using the government for power. That power would come in the form of laws based on religious doctrines. The words "under God" are not in this catagory because they are not obligatory, nor are they law. Therefore, this isn't a Constitutional issue and the pledge should be left alone.

I might stop here to open it up for comments/questions.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:47 pm

There is already a thread on this topic, which, for myself, I realized too late to do anything about. Crixus and I seem to have hijacked this one for our own discussion about whether or not the pledge was an authoritarian device. But if no one else objects, I'd be happy to continue this particular thread with the understanding that there is another one that specifically deals with this topic, and with this one examining the theories behind it. That may be a difference that is so subtle as to be non-existent, but I'll push it forward anyway.

"Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:The 1st Amendment establishes a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in the form of a right. So if it's a right, whats the obligation? Well just look at the Amendment itself - "Congress shall make no law" - We can rephrase it within it's own context of the rights-based theory - "Congress has the obligation to not create any (law) legal obligations establishing a religion." Now this is obviously what the 1st Amendment was intended for. What does Congress do? They create laws to protect our rights. Laws are the obligations upon people in society. So we can simply call them legal obligations.

You've gotten a little bit out of kilter here. The line should read "Congress has the obligation to not create any (law) legal obligations respecting the establishment of religion." This doesn't refer to "a religion", it refers to "religion" in general. I take this to mean that there is not one religion that should be regarded as better or more acceptable than another, and that Congress does not have the authority to declare such things. "respecting the establishment of" similarly means that Congress does not have the authority to set up a state religion nor promote any pre-existing religion.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:we can now think of laws and legal theory based on these rights and obligations. When the government creates laws, they place our rights and obligations in a "legal" context. Laws (aside from public laws) are literally legal obligations. They tell you what you can or can't do. You can or can't do these things because other people have rights and if you do act X which is against the law, the idea is that you are violating the rights of other people.

Very slight point of disagreement here. The laws in the U.S. are specifically set up to say what we can't do. That is, anything that is not prohibited is permitted. Any permissions stated in the prohibitions in law are actually a part of the prohibitions.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:It does NOT logically follow that the framers intended to completely censor God from society and the public. I mean, they clearly establish a freedom of religion too! This presupposes that they never believed that God ought to be removed completely from the state. Instead, they wanted to prevent any religion that possibly held a status quo in any given state from establishing laws/legal obligations out of their religious doctrines.

Another slight point of disagreement here, "removed completely from the state" should be "removed completely from society". If you mean the state, then I would disagree. The state can be separated from society. When someone in government acts as a citizen, they are a citizen. But when someone in government acts as a representative of government, they are the government. But let's continue.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:So when you consider the framer's intent and the context of which it is written (rights-based theory in DoI), you see that the 1st Amendment forbids any legal obligations founded by religion. The pledge does not impose any obligations at all, so it is not unconstitutional.

This is where we disagree. Using your definitions, there is an obligation imposed on us by reciting the pledge. The obligation is to view the nation as "under God". We have the right to express our own religious views, and we also have the right to disagree with others' religious views. But we do not have the obligation to respect another person's religious views. However, the government does have this obligation. As a corollary, the government may not disrespect the religious views of others. This is what "under God" does. It disrespects those that do not hold a God view.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:The Constitution, specifically Bill of Rights, was created to establish a limit to power of the government, right? Our (BoR) rights place obligations (specifically restrictive duties) on the government in order to limit the government's power.
The question then follows: How do the non-obligatory words of "under God" in the pledge make the government more powerful?
Remember the exegesis of the Constitution is to prevent powerful/tyrannical government. We thus find the liberal eisegesis of the Constitution is to censor God, not restrict governmental powers.

Regardless of any gestalt theory of the Constitution, it is still a set of laws and not a black box. The proof of power is in the exercise of stating that the nation in which I live is under God. If we accept that, then we should accept the consequences of that statement. I realize this is a slippery slope argument. If we are asked to accept that a) there is a God as defined by whatever God means, and b) that this God is over our nation, then we are being asked to accept everything else that comes with this God (wink wink, nudge nudge, etc.)[/quote]

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:There exists a right to freely exercise religion in the state. There also exists an obligation to prevent any such religion from using the government for power. That power would come in the form of laws based on religious doctrines. The words "under God" are not in this catagory because they are not obligatory, nor are they law. Therefore, this isn't a Constitutional issue and the pledge should be left alone.

At least part of the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In the aborted case of Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, Justices O'Connor, Breyer, and Souter stated that part of the reason the phrase does not matter as much as Newdow thought it did was that references to a deity have become so commonplace that the meaning has become secularized:

Souter agrees that the pledge is an "affirmation," but wonders whether it's "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He uses that wonderful phrase "ceremonial deism," a legal term of art for the "God of the Hallmark cards"—utterly devoid of spiritual significance. He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing."

One Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible
The implications of this are astounding. The argument here is that "God", as it is in the pledge, is so tame of a reference to the Christian God that it may not be a Constitutional issue. Read between the lines, here. If you believe that this God really is the Christian God, and that its intentions are to reference the Christian God, then you must find it a Constitutional issue.

Not only that, but this "disappearance" -- as he calls it -- of the meaning of God is cultural. That is, we say it so often ("God bless you", etc.) that it has become secularized. But imagine a time when the President invokes God to justify his political positions, a time when God becomes a larger part of our society on a cultural level. Then would this "God" once again start to fail the Constitutional test? Here's what our current president has to say on the subject:

"When we pledge allegiance to One Nation under God, our citizens participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence."

ibid
Here is your proof of power. The government clearly gains the right to claim God as a reference if not a motivation. The guiding force of the nation shifts away from societal will toward the will of God; and how government interprets that God is directly proportional to the amount of power the populace loses as a result.

ed: formatting

Esoteric_Illuminati · Post by **Esoteric_Illuminati** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:58 pm

ST88 wrote:You've gotten a little bit out of kilter here. The line should read "Congress has the obligation to not create any (law) legal obligations respecting the establishment of religion." This doesn't refer to "a religion", it refers to "religion" in general. I take this to mean that there is not one religion that should be regarded as better or more acceptable than another, and that Congress does not have the authority to declare such things. "respecting the establishment of" similarly means that Congress does not have the authority to set up a state religion nor promote any pre-existing religion.

Sure - and what specifically about "religion" could the framers be worried about, given this rights-based theory they established? Religious doctrines impose obligations contradicting those who reserve the right to be free from religion. The 1st Amendment singles out Congress (the law-making body) in order to prevent any establishment of religion to gain power (via legal obligations) within the government.

When I think of "establishment of religion" in the context of a rights-based theory, I think of it as forbiding Congress from passing laws (legal obligations) based strictly on religious teachings/doctrine. When such a law is passed, a state "religion" has been "established." The pledge does not fall under this catagory.

Very slight point of disagreement here. The laws in the U.S. are specifically set up to say what we can't do. That is, anything that is not prohibited is permitted. Any permissions stated in the prohibitions in law are actually a part of the prohibitions.

*shrugs* I can live with that as long as we agree that laws are essentially legal obligations.

Another slight point of disagreement here, "removed completely from the state" should be "removed completely from society". If you mean the state, then I would disagree. The state can be separated from society. When someone in government acts as a citizen, they are a citizen. But when someone in government acts as a representative of government, they are the government. But let's continue.

Naw. The concept of God is fine even within the state and its functions as long as it does not place any unjust legal obligations upon its citizens. That's the whole point of my argument which is predicated on the rights-based theory. Within such a context, "God" is not unconstitutional unless unjust obligations are established by law. Our nation's official motto is "In God We Trust." This is simply a phrase. It imposes no obligation on anyone, therefore within the context of the rights-based theory of the Constitution, it ought to be left alone. Likewise with the pledge and other such things.

This is where we disagree. Using your definitions, there is an obligation imposed on us by reciting the pledge. The obligation is to view the nation as "under God". We have the right to express our own religious views, and we also have the right to disagree with others' religious views. But we do not have the obligation to respect another person's religious views. However, the government does have this obligation. As a corollary, the government may not disrespect the religious views of others. This is what "under God" does. It disrespects those that do not hold a God view.

There is no legal obligation on you (or students) to recite the pledge if you don't want to. Therefore it's not a Constitutional matter. You can freely express your atheistic/agnostic views by not reciting the pledge. The state is not obliged to censor "God" for that contradicts the "free exercise of religion." Since the pledge is non-obligatory, it is not disrespectful of other views.

In case there is any question as to whether the pledge imposes unjust obligations upon people who have the right to be free from religious obligations, look up your state statutes. I live in Montana and Montana statutory law is consistent with the rights-based theory by making the pledge non-obligatory upon students/teachers who do not wish to say "under God."

Here's the law for Montana:

20-7-133. Pledge of allegiance required -- exemption for students and teachers. (1) Except as provided in subsection (4), the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America must be recited in all public schools of the state.
(2) The recitation required in subsection (1) must be conducted at the beginning of the first class:
(a) of each school day in kindergarten through grade 6; and
(b) of each school week in grades 7 through 12.
(3) The recitation must be conducted:
(a) by each individual classroom teacher or the teacher's surrogate; or
(b) over the school intercom system by a faculty member or person designated by the principal.
(4) A school district shall inform all students and teachers of their right to not participate in recitation of the pledge. Any student or teacher who, for any reason, objects to participating in the pledge exercise must be excused from participation. A student or teacher who declines to participate in the pledge may engage in any alternative form of conduct so long as that conduct does not materially or substantially disrupt the work or discipline of the school.
(5) If a student or teacher declines to participate in the recitation of the pledge pursuant to this section, a school district may not for evaluation purposes include any reference to the student's or teacher's not participating.

(Source: http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/20/7/20-7-133.htm )

No doubt your state statutes are very similar if not identical. I will say, if any statute does not provide this caveat of the recitation of the pledge for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional.

The pledge imposes no legal obligation; citizens of the state cannot be punished for not reciting it, therefore the pledge is not unconstitutional.

Regardless of any gestalt theory of the Constitution, it is still a set of laws and not a black box. The proof of power is in the exercise of stating that the nation in which I live is under God. If we accept that, then we should accept the consequences of that statement. I realize this is a slippery slope argument. If we are asked to accept that a) there is a God as defined by whatever God means, and b) that this God is over our nation, then we are being asked to accept everything else that comes with this God (wink wink, nudge nudge, etc.)

Well obviously that slippery slope runs off both sides of the mountain that is to think that if we are asked to a.) censor the non-obligatory words of "under God" from the pledge and b.) censor "God" from all public arenas in this nation to supposedly respect the rights of those who don't believe in God, then we are being asked to give up our FREE exercise of religion!

Either way, it's a silly way to make an argument against or for the pledge. It'll take quite simply an "act of God" for the rationalistic legal theory in this country to evolve to the point where non-obligatory phrases containing "God" to lead down a slippery slope ending in legal obligations based on religious doctrine.

I'm a very devout Christian and personally have the utmost respect for the notion of the separation of CHURCH and state. But trying to censor non-obligatory phrases such as "under God" from both state AND society is going too far. So far as that it takes a liberal eisegesis of the Constitution to justify it.

At least part of the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In the aborted case of Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, Justices O'Connor, Breyer, and Souter stated that part of the reason the phrase does not matter as much as Newdow thought it did was that references to a deity have become so commonplace that the meaning has become secularized:
Souter agrees that the pledge is an "affirmation," but wonders whether it's "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He uses that wonderful phrase "ceremonial deism," a legal term of art for the "God of the Hallmark cards"—utterly devoid of spiritual significance. He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing."
One Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible
The implications of this are astounding. The argument here is that "God", as it is in the pledge, is so tame of a reference to the Christian God that it may not be a Constitutional issue. Read between the lines, here. If you believe that this God really is the Christian God, and that its intentions are to reference the Christian God, then you must find it a Constitutional issue.

Well we all know the SCOTUS is inconsistant within itself due to internal competing ideologies. Whether or not the pledge is an "affirmation" of God or even to the Christian God specifically, it is non-obligatory, therefore there is nothing wrong with it. I don't believe the argument I use calls for any unnecessary analysis, like the content of the pledge. It considers the Constitution within it's meaningful context - the moral and political theory established in the 2nd paragraph of the DoI - and asks, "Does the pledge violate any person's rights by imposing any unjust obligations upon the people?" The answer here is, "No."

The bottom line here is that simply because the pledge is politically incorrect, it is not unconstitutional. We could twist many words in the pledge to show that it discrimates against certain people. I mean what about all those foreign students and liberals (like Michael Moore!) that do not want to pledge allegience to America? Let's face it, the most politically correct pledge would be: "I pledge allegience to myself and to my own interests, people that don't share my worldview do not deserve to breathe the same air." No doubt some of the liberals (like Newdow) that make this such an issue believe just that.

Not only that, but this "disappearance" -- as he calls it -- of the meaning of God is cultural. That is, we say it so often ("God bless you", etc.) that it has become secularized. But imagine a time when the President invokes God to justify his political positions, a time when God becomes a larger part of our society on a cultural level. Then would this "God" once again start to fail the Constitutional test? Here's what our current president has to say on the subject:
"When we pledge allegiance to One Nation under God, our citizens participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence."
ibid
Here is your proof of power. The government clearly gains the right to claim God as a reference if not a motivation. The guiding force of the nation shifts away from societal will toward the will of God; and how government interprets that God is directly proportional to the amount of power the populace loses as a result.

That's quite a ridiculous stretch if you call that "proof of power" and uses that slippery slope argument. Proof of power would require legal obligations upon it's citizens and enforcement of those obligations. Show me a statutory law (state or federal) that unjustly obliges people to follow a religion. Let us not forget that our politicians also reserve the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, including George W. Bush.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:10 pm

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Sure - and what specifically about "religion" could the framers be worried about, given this rights-based theory they established? Religious doctrines impose obligations contradicting those who reserve the right to be free from religion. The 1st Amendment singles out Congress (the law-making body) in order to prevent any establishment of religion to gain power (via legal obligations) within the government.

When I think of "establishment of religion" in the context of a rights-based theory, I think of it as forbiding Congress from passing laws (legal obligations) based strictly on religious teachings/doctrine. When such a law is passed, a state "religion" has been "established." The pledge does not fall under this catagory.

I don't think it's as simple as that. "Religion" is a difficult concept to pin down in law. Let's set aside the issue of non-obligatory pledges for a moment, I'll get to that later. Government is set up as a governor (I use the mechanical meaning of this word) on the actions of its citizens. You can think about violating the rights of someone else all you want as long as you don't do it. Religion, however -- and specifically Christianity -- is set up as a governor on the thoughts of its followers. And please don't jump all over this if you think I'm implying thought control. I'm not. It just requires that followers be of like mind, because if someone is in the right frame of mind, they won't commit harmful actions. Actions can be forgiven, but not the refusal of doctrine.

This means that religious references, any religious references, do not need to rise to the level of action in order to infringe on anyone's rights, because they are specifically intended to act on the mind. The more you see it -- the more you see others accepting it -- the more you accept it. The obligation, again, using your definition, is that I accept it, just as I accept the roads that I drive on. Because public schools are an instrument of government, using "God" in an official act tends to advance the promotion of religion. And, yes, I am also for removing references to God in other places, such as money and witness oaths.

The "establishment of religion" clause applies directly here. Because just by mentioning a tenet of a particular religion in the same context as an allegiance to the government, you are placing that obligation on me to accept both as a concatenated structure.

I realize this is my opinion, but then, that's why we're debating.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:There is no legal obligation on you (or students) to recite the pledge if you don't want to. Therefore it's not a Constitutional matter. You can freely express your atheistic/agnostic views by not reciting the pledge. The state is not obliged to censor "God" for that contradicts the "free exercise of religion." Since the pledge is non-obligatory, it is not disrespectful of other views.

In case there is any question as to whether the pledge imposes unjust obligations upon people who have the right to be free from religious obligations, look up your state statutes. I live in Montana and Montana statutory law is consistent with the rights-based theory by making the pledge non-obligatory upon students/teachers who do not wish to say "under God."

No doubt your state statutes are very similar if not identical. I will say, if any statute does not provide this caveat of the recitation of the pledge for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional.

The pledge imposes no legal obligation; citizens of the state cannot be punished for not reciting it, therefore the pledge is not unconstitutional.

Here's why this type of mitigatory action fails. The pledge as it was originally written would not be objectionable to anyone. The fact that there is no mention of God does not harm anyone. This is not my point, I'm just setting it up. Imagine a situation where a child gets the permission not to say the pledge because of the "Under God" phrase. What happens to this child?

1) The child is led out of the room for the duration of the pledge and participates in some sort of other activity.
2) The child is allowed not to stand, and instead remains seated and silent.
3) The child stands and says the pledge anyway, omitting the phrase "Under God" through either mental reservation or as "a pause" in the recitation, along with the rest of the class.

Each one of these options has its problems.

If the child is led out of the room or does not stand, this equals special treatment because of religious views. This violates the child's rights because it reveals his her religous viewpoint as surely as if the teacher stood in front of the class and asked all the children to segregate themselves by religion and disallow certain groups from participating in a school activity. And by disallow, I mean: shouldn't we expect children of non-God faiths to opt-out? And if they don't, are we enabling them to lie or to turn their back on their religions?

The Supreme Court says that a child has the right to sit silently during the pledge. What if the pledge is something the child wants to say, i.e., believes in America, but does not believe in God? If the child stands and recites the pledge, then omits the phrase "Under God" when it comes around, that child is consciously making the choice to not be affected by this rhetoric. But the pause is there. The child is made aware that there is an omission that must be made in order to make it acceptable for his/her beliefs. This means that the child is asked to make a choice based on his/her beliefs in the context of authority.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Well obviously that slippery slope runs off both sides of the mountain that is to think that if we are asked to a.) censor the non-obligatory words of "under God" from the pledge and b.) censor "God" from all public arenas in this nation to supposedly respect the rights of those who don't believe in God, then we are being asked to give up our FREE exercise of religion!

Thank you for using the term "censor". It makes this so much easier. Censoring implies that there is something that we must hide -- that it is still there, but we are just covering it up for a certain audience. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not favor censoring the phrase, I favor excision. It should not be there at all. The original intent of the pledge had nothing to do with God (and it still doesn't). But this isn't as important as the reason it was added later. It wasn't added to conform to some cultural ideal of an America as a nation under God, it was added as a political device in the context of a Cold War where the primary rhetorical difference between the two sides was religion. But even this does not matter as much as why it has remained to this day. It remains because people don't see the need to change it. This may seem obvious, but I don't think we can go any further than that. Are people afraid of removing "God" from things like this for fear of divine retribution? Do they not understand that there are other cultures in this country that do not have a God belief? Are they afraid of making America a godless country?

Without the censoring argument, you can't argue that this is an infringment of free exercise of religion. Children already have the right to pray in school. Teachers may not lead the prayer, but they can tell the children that it's OK to pray. It would be possible to argue that inserting the phrase "under God" is a corollary to the censorship argument, the inclusion of exclusionary language.

It's possible that I could accept the phrase if it was originally intended as a cultural reference to the foundation of the country -- freedom of religion and all that. I am not in favor of changing the name of San Francisco to Francisco, for example, because that's cultural. But the phrase in question was a political addition in a time of crisis. If you want to argue that the Cold War has produced viable cultural artifacts, you are free to do so. But I don't think this is one of them.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Either way, it's a silly way to make an argument against or for the pledge. It'll take quite simply an "act of God" for the rationalistic legal theory in this country to evolve to the point where non-obligatory phrases containing "God" to lead down a slippery slope ending in legal obligations based on religious doctrine.

I wasn't talking about legal obligations, I was talking about creating a climate where the idea of God was legitimized because of its association to government.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:I'm a very devout Christian and personally have the utmost respect for the notion of the separation of CHURCH and state. But trying to censor non-obligatory phrases such as "under God" from both state AND society is going too far. So far as that it takes a liberal eisegesis of the Constitution to justify it.

I disagree very strongly. It is up to the proponents of this phrase to justify its existence, not the other way around. The default logic should be to leave it out, and the arguments for leaving it in should be active, not passive.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:The bottom line here is that simply because the pledge is politically incorrect, it is not unconstitutional. We could twist many words in the pledge to show that it discrimates against certain people. I mean what about all those foreign students and liberals (like Michael Moore!) that do not want to pledge allegience to America? Let's face it, the most politically correct pledge would be: "I pledge allegience to myself and to my own interests, people that don't share my worldview do not deserve to breathe the same air." No doubt some of the liberals (like Newdow) that make this such an issue believe just that.

We appear to be in agreement that, in general, political correctness has run amok. So much so that both sides are quick to point out inconsistencies and hypocritical policies of the other side. I believe this is such a case. Because I object to the mention of God, you think it's political correctness. But I assure you, it's not. It goes directly to the heart of what government is and is not allowed to do. I don't see why this is an issue. "Under God" is clearly a religious phrase within a government context.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:That's quite a ridiculous stretch if you call that "proof of power" and uses that slippery slope argument. Proof of power would require legal obligations upon it's citizens and enforcement of those obligations. Show me a statutory law (state or federal) that unjustly obliges people to follow a religion. Let us not forget that our politicians also reserve the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, including George W. Bush.

I completely agree. But I am not willing to give our current president the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he is speaking as a citizen or as a president. The quote I gave was in the context of a diplomatic meeting with the representative of another country (not that it matters). Was he a president or a citizen? What do you think the other party took away from this statement?

Your "obligations" test does not address the harm caused by the phrase. How far could the pledge go in order to show up on the radar? "One nation, Under Jesus"? "One nation of God-fearing people"? "One nation, under the protection of God"? Would any of these pass through? My line of demarcation for the govenrment telling my child that God de facto exists is by mentioning Him in the pledge. Where is your line?

Esoteric_Illuminati · Post by **Esoteric_Illuminati** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:22 pm

ST88 wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that. "Religion" is a difficult concept to pin down in law. Let's set aside the issue of non-obligatory pledges for a moment, I'll get to that later. Government is set up as a governor (I use the mechanical meaning of this word) on the actions of its citizens. You can think about violating the rights of someone else all you want as long as you don't do it. Religion, however -- and specifically Christianity -- is set up as a governor on the thoughts of its followers. And please don't jump all over this if you think I'm implying thought control. I'm not. It just requires that followers be of like mind, because if someone is in the right frame of mind, they won't commit harmful actions. Actions can be forgiven, but not the refusal of doctrine.

This means that religious references, any religious references, do not need to rise to the level of action in order to infringe on anyone's rights, because they are specifically intended to act on the mind. The more you see it -- the more you see others accepting it -- the more you accept it. The obligation, again, using your definition, is that I accept it, just as I accept the roads that I drive on. Because public schools are an instrument of government, using "God" in an official act tends to advance the promotion of religion. And, yes, I am also for removing references to God in other places, such as money and witness oaths.

The "establishment of religion" clause applies directly here. Because just by mentioning a tenet of a particular religion in the same context as an allegiance to the government, you are placing that obligation on me to accept both as a concatenated structure.

I realize this is my opinion, but then, that's why we're debating.

So essentially you're saying the pledge is unconstitutional because it is something that is condoned by the state and makes people "think" about God. So you believe things that can lead to thoughts as well as actions can violate rights ergo be unconstitutional?

Would this be a similar argument?
The state says I have a right to listen to rap music via free speech. Rap music can be considered a governor of thoughts. Some rap music makes me think of murdering and raping people and those thoughts can lead to action which inevitably will violate another person's right to life, therefore rap music is unconstitutional. Rap music acts intentionally on impressionable minds as well.

Here's the thing, the pledge does NOT force you to accept or believe anything. Not only that, no one is obliged to say it. So if you want to toy with the idea that "saying leads to believing leads to action" that breaks down at the point when you don't have to say it in the first place. It's even more silly believing that removing "under God" will have any significant effect on thoughts of God by students anyways.

The establishment clause is quite narrow and defined as "No LAW" establishing religion. Lord Patrick Devlin once wrote: "A State that refuses to enforce Christian beliefs has lost the right to enforce Christian morals." I agree with that. We're not a Christian state, therefore we have no right to enforce Christian doctrines. Key word here is "ENFORCE."

Here's why this type of mitigatory action fails. The pledge as it was originally written would not be objectionable to anyone. The fact that there is no mention of God does not harm anyone. This is not my point, I'm just setting it up. Imagine a situation where a child gets the permission not to say the pledge because of the "Under God" phrase. What happens to this child?

1) The child is led out of the room for the duration of the pledge and participates in some sort of other activity.
2) The child is allowed not to stand, and instead remains seated and silent.
3) The child stands and says the pledge anyway, omitting the phrase "Under God" through either mental reservation or as "a pause" in the recitation, along with the rest of the class.

...

The Supreme Court says that a child has the right to sit silently during the pledge. What if the pledge is something the child wants to say, i.e., believes in America, but does not believe in God? If the child stands and recites the pledge, then omits the phrase "Under God" when it comes around, that child is consciously making the choice to not be affected by this rhetoric. But the pause is there. The child is made aware that there is an omission that must be made in order to make it acceptable for his/her beliefs. This means that the child is asked to make a choice based on his/her beliefs in the context of authority.

I believe that is quite naive. First off, I believe there still would be objections to the pledge even if the words "under God" were left out. It's amazing at the silliness of PC in society today. For instance, a foreign exchange student from France, that does not wish to pledge allegience to America; or perhaps a student who absolutely despises George W. Bush when he's reelected and refuses to pledge allegience to a country run by him. Of the above 3 choices you gave, what would you recommend for these people? Any of those choices would certainly give the child a sense of alienation - but that is unavoidable.

Bottom line here is that there will always be people who are going to be alienated to some degree because of their beliefs. The sad fact is that there is never going to be a utopian society where we all agree on everything. We can't make everyone happy in a melting pot - the best we can do is mitigate things! That's what the Constitution and it's rights-based theory is there for. There is no obligation for these people and that is what matters. They can reserve the right not to participate if they disagree with the pledge for ANY reason (including religious differences).

Thank you for using the term "censor". It makes this so much easier. Censoring implies that there is something that we must hide -- that it is still there, but we are just covering it up for a certain audience. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not favor censoring the phrase, I favor excision. It should not be there at all. The original intent of the pledge had nothing to do with God (and it still doesn't). But this isn't as important as the reason it was added later. It wasn't added to conform to some cultural ideal of an America as a nation under God, it was added as a political device in the context of a Cold War where the primary rhetorical difference between the two sides was religion. But even this does not matter as much as why it has remained to this day. It remains because people don't see the need to change it. This may seem obvious, but I don't think we can go any further than that. Are people afraid of removing "God" from things like this for fear of divine retribution? Do they not understand that there are other cultures in this country that do not have a God belief? Are they afraid of making America a godless country?

Without the censoring argument, you can't argue that this is an infringment of free exercise of religion. Children already have the right to pray in school. Teachers may not lead the prayer, but they can tell the children that it's OK to pray. It would be possible to argue that inserting the phrase "under God" is a corollary to the censorship argument, the inclusion of exclusionary language.

It's possible that I could accept the phrase if it was originally intended as a cultural reference to the foundation of the country -- freedom of religion and all that. I am not in favor of changing the name of San Francisco to Francisco, for example, because that's cultural. But the phrase in question was a political addition in a time of crisis. If you want to argue that the Cold War has produced viable cultural artifacts, you are free to do so. But I don't think this is one of them.

Thing is there is no *need* to change it. It comes down to the appeal of political correctness - making the minorities "happy." I'm just saying the Constitution was NOT created to make a politically correct country. It's about JUSTICE. If a person could show how the pledge is somehow unjust, then I'd be right there with them. However that's not the case here. It's about restricting the free exercise of religion because religion and "God" is no longer politically correct.

See, I don't need to justify why "under God" is in the pledge. I know why it was added and all that. But that makes no difference now; maybe then when it was added, but not now. It's already there and official. There needs to be a legitimate reason to remove it. I don't see the reason "because it'll make more atheists happy" or "it'll make an impressionable atheist *think* about God" are legitimate reasons since the pledge is consistant with the rights-based theory of the Constitution. That's the argument people use though: "It's unconstitutional, because...^"

So I believe it's origin is irrelevant. What's relevent is evidence to show that it violates a person's rights. Remember rights and obligations go together. But if there is no unjust obligation forcing people to recite the pledge, then how can one's rights be violated?

I wasn't talking about legal obligations, I was talking about creating a climate where the idea of God was legitimized because of its association to government.

If you could show evidence that this is the case, perhaps you'd have a stronger argument for that. The pledge has had "under God" for what(?) 50 years and seems to me like the idea of God is headed in the opposite direction of being legitimized by the state.

I disagree very strongly. It is up to the proponents of this phrase to justify its existence, not the other way around. The default logic should be to leave it out, and the arguments for leaving it in should be active, not passive.

I disagree as I said above. The "burden of proof" falls on those that want reform/change. It was reformed 50 years ago and at that time, it's change was justified, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't have been changed. So now some want to change it again. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it right? So if there is nothing legitimately wrong with it, there is no need to remove it.

We appear to be in agreement that, in general, political correctness has run amok. So much so that both sides are quick to point out inconsistencies and hypocritical policies of the other side. I believe this is such a case. Because I object to the mention of God, you think it's political correctness. But I assure you, it's not. It goes directly to the heart of what government is and is not allowed to do. I don't see why this is an issue. "Under God" is clearly a religious phrase within a government context.

Well, that's why I formulate my argument on the rights-based theory. Because THAT is what determines what the goverment is and is not allowed to do. The government is NOT allowed to create laws (legal obligations) that compromise a person's rights. That way we can sort out what is PC garbage and what is actually a legitimate case of unconstutionality.

I completely agree. But I am not willing to give our current president the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he is speaking as a citizen or as a president. The quote I gave was in the context of a diplomatic meeting with the representative of another country (not that it matters). Was he a president or a citizen? What do you think the other party took away from this statement?

I believe a person's moral/religious views are inseparable with his political views. We vote for human beings as political leaders, not robots.

Your "obligations" test does not address the harm caused by the phrase. How far could the pledge go in order to show up on the radar? "One nation, Under Jesus"? "One nation of God-fearing people"? "One nation, under the protection of God"? Would any of these pass through? My line of demarcation for the govenrment telling my child that God de facto exists is by mentioning Him in the pledge. Where is your line?

Well I'm not one for drawing up arbitrary lines of demarcation. I'm simply positing an argument for which we determine the proper interpretation of the Constitution and the BoR. It is a rights-based theory. Rights and obligations - As long as you child's rights are not violated, then there is no appeal to the Constitution. If that is the case and one still isn't satisfied, with all due respect, I recommend doing a better job at home convincing one's child that God doesn't exist.

We can't make everyone happy. The Constitution will never serve a utopian purpose in such a individualistic society. Twisting the Constitution to serve one's worldview or self-interest should not be tolerated. I think the rights-based theory of the Constitution is inescapable upon honest reflection. If we are to remain consistant with that theory, we cannot allow the political correctness be the primary motivation for changes in this country. Like I said, it's about justice and nothing less. The pledge is not unjust because it does not violate any person's rights. Within the context of the Constitution (BoR), it is absolutely unnecessary to change the pledge.

You raise some really good questions ST88, but ultimately, I believe they require such a stretch in logic (slippery slopes) and have no evidential support that they really do not really show how the pledge is unconstitutional within a rights-based context.

Of course that's just my honest opinion

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:16 pm

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:So essentially you're saying the pledge is unconstitutional because it is something that is condoned by the state and makes people "think" about God. So you believe things that can lead to thoughts as well as actions can violate rights ergo be unconstitutional?

As the Serbs say, this is like comparing frogs and grandmothers. I don't care about making children "think about" God. You can bring up God all you want in the proper context. Religion, after all, has a long and storied past in our culture which we cannot divorce ourselves from (no matter how hard we try

). But thinking about God is a long way from legitimizing the idea of God. Exposure to God is no more harmful to students than exposure to sex education. The problem comes in when the teacher advocates one position, as it were, over another.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:It's even more silly believing that removing "under God" will have any significant effect on thoughts of God by students anyways.

That would be an interesting study, wouldn't it?

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:The establishment clause is quite narrow and defined as "No LAW" establishing religion. Lord Patrick Devlin once wrote: "A State that refuses to enforce Christian beliefs has lost the right to enforce Christian morals." I agree with that. We're not a Christian state, therefore we have no right to enforce Christian doctrines. Key word here is "ENFORCE."

So the pledge is not a law? I beg to differ. Just for the record: Legal Information Institute -- Pledge of Allegiance. Enforcement is a curious defense, because it implies that the only reason the law is not unconstitutional is that it's allowed to be selectively enforced. I.e., The unconstitutionality of it is already acknowledged, and the fact that some children can be excused from this government-sponsored activity only serves to highlight this.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:I believe that is quite naive. First off, I believe there still would be objections to the pledge even if the words "under God" were left out. It's amazing at the silliness of PC in society today. For instance, a foreign exchange student from France, that does not wish to pledge allegience to America; or perhaps a student who absolutely despises George W. Bush when he's reelected and refuses to pledge allegience to a country run by him. Of the above 3 choices you gave, what would you recommend for these people? Any of those choices would certainly give the child a sense of alienation - but that is unavoidable.

On the contrary, this view seems more naive than mine. Clearly, a student who does not wish to recite the Pledge is free not to do so on any grounds. I would hope that such a political statement would be different from taking a religious stand. Religion, after all, is treated differently from political affiliation and citizenship. In these cases, the choice is a political choice, which means that the desire not to say the pledge is an active desire.

I submit that it is not this same kind of desire that precludes a student from not saying the pledge on religious grounds, but it is a personal belief that saying the pledge would be harmful to him/herself in a personal way. This is really what we're talking about, the harm caused to the student by forcing him/her to make a decision based on personal faith, and the consequences of that decision. The government says that America is Under God. Do you agree? If not, Canada is that way, buddy. Government acknowledges this particular God, and if you don't then your allegiance is imperfect.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Bottom line here is that there will always be people who are going to be alienated to some degree because of their beliefs. The sad fact is that there is never going to be a utopian society where we all agree on everything. We can't make everyone happy in a melting pot - the best we can do is mitigate things! That's what the Constitution and it's rights-based theory is there for.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you satisfied with this type of alienation? So you can't please all of the people all of the time, so we just shouldn't try, is that it? The tyranny of the minority mucking it all up for the rest of us. I'll flip your argument: How does removing "under God" constitute a harm? It is clearly a harm, now that you have admitted it creates alienation, so how does removing that harm create a wider harm? Shouldn't we try to make our government as relevant to all the people in the country as possible? This isn't political correctness, this is pursuit of happiness stuff.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:There is no obligation for these people and that is what matters. They can reserve the right not to participate if they disagree with the pledge for ANY reason (including religious differences).

The obligation is for them choose not to be a part of the wider society that does believe in God. By not participating, they are acknowledging that they are second-class citizens.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Thing is there is no *need* to change it. It comes down to the appeal of political correctness - making the minorities "happy." I'm just saying the Constitution was NOT created to make a politically correct country. It's about JUSTICE. If a person could show how the pledge is somehow unjust, then I'd be right there with them. However that's not the case here. It's about restricting the free exercise of religion because religion and "God" is no longer politically correct.

How is removing this restrictive phrase possibly restricting the free exercise of religion? Your right of free exercise has nothing to do with a state-sponsored pledge. And the government is in the business of protecting both of our rights, not favoring yours.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:See, I don't need to justify why "under God" is in the pledge. I know why it was added and all that. But that makes no difference now; maybe then when it was added, but not now. It's already there and official. There needs to be a legitimate reason to remove it. I don't see the reason "because it'll make more atheists happy" or "it'll make an impressionable atheist *think* about God" are legitimate reasons since the pledge is consistant with the rights-based theory of the Constitution. That's the argument people use though: "It's unconstitutional, because...^" So I believe it's origin is irrelevant.

I get it now. It's already there, so there shouldn't even be an argument. We have ways to decrease the harm its doing, so what's the problem? Sort of like issuing gas masks to people who do not want to breathe in pollution from coal-powered plants.

I disagree that it doesn't make a difference why the law was made/changed. Constitutional scholarship is generally concerned with the circumstances surrounding the creation of law in order to interpret it. Everything must be seen in context, otherwise interpretation would be arbitrary. If you didn't like the Bush quote I gave earlier, how about this one?

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, after signing the law that changed the pledge in 1954

Contrast this with the previous change to the pledge of allegiance. When it was originally written, it did not include the name of the country. That was added later because it was thought that immigrants to this country might confuse allegiance to this country with allegiance to their mother countries. The addition of "United States of America" clarified the meaning of the pledge. What does "under God" do?

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:
ST88 wrote:I wasn't talking about legal obligations, I was talking about creating a climate where the idea of God was legitimized because of its association to government.
If you could show evidence that this is the case, perhaps you'd have a stronger argument for that. The pledge has had "under God" for what(?) 50 years and seems to me like the idea of God is headed in the opposite direction of being legitimized by the state.

I don't need to show evidence. A hypothetical situation carries as much weight in a court of law as does an actual incident. One might argue it carries more weight. And I disagree that this country is headed in the opposite direction from God. I think you might have a point if this was 1982. But the country has been becoming more religionified (?) since then.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:I disagree as I said above. The "burden of proof" falls on those that want reform/change. It was reformed 50 years ago and at that time, it's change was justified, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't have been changed. So now some want to change it again. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it right? So if there is nothing legitimately wrong with it, there is no need to remove it.

Absolutely wrong. The change 50 years ago wasn't justified, it was rationalized. The fact that they did it does not prove that it was the correct thing to do, even at the time. And we have the right to question that decision on whatever grounds we find appropriate. The interpretation of the intent of each amendment has been used for legal argument. The interpretation of the reasons behind laws enacted since then can be used as arguments against them.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:I believe a person's moral/religious views are inseparable with his political views. We vote for human beings as political leaders, not robots.

Does this mean we should ask our president to follow the law only as it suits his religious conscience? (Come to think of it... )

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:I'm simply positing an argument for which we determine the proper interpretation of the Constitution and the BoR. It is a rights-based theory. Rights and obligations - As long as you child's rights are not violated, then there is no appeal to the Constitution. If that is the case and one still isn't satisfied, with all due respect, I recommend doing a better job at home convincing one's child that God doesn't exist.

OK.

We should prepare our children for the irrational discrimination he/she will face because their beliefs are not shared by the wider society. We should prepare them to assimilate into a larger culture that will only give lip service to freedom of religion, and will instead promote a view that a majority of citizens find acceptable. We should teach them to become either Marranos to Christian America or else prepare for a life of discrimination based on minority status. We should teach Christian children that their view is the correct view, and that any other view is wrong.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Within the context of the Constitution (BoR), it is absolutely unnecessary to change the pledge.

It wasn't necessary to change it in 1954. But because of the "politics" of the times back then, they went ahead and did it anyway. There is no logical reason for it to be in the pledge. It is indefensible on legal grounds. The only claim it has to legitimacy is its current existence. As I said above, I am allowed to argue that its inclusion was a spurious and, if I may say, half-hearted attempt to unify the nation in the face of an outside threat.

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:You raise some really good questions ST88, but ultimately, I believe they require such a stretch in logic (slippery slopes) and have no evidential support that they really do not really show how the pledge is unconstitutional within a rights-based context.

Of course that's just my honest opinion

I don't think that a slippery-slope argument is out of place here, if only because its true nature is as a precedent. A precedent is the business end a legal slope that tips the law toward the issue. If we allow "under God" to remain, we have opened the door to acceptance of other similar types of religious speech, and have made it an acceptable form of religious expression.

Of course, it does not need to be found unconstitutional in order to have it removed. An act of Congress would be enough. But then, there is no snowball big enough to survive the heat put on legislators not to do so. It saddens me that there are so many people in this country that believe America is a Christian nation, and that by being a Christian someone is automatically "better" than someone who isn't. I wonder where they get these ideas from?