Kona,

You might want to read the words of the founding fathers. While they were believers (for the most part, and in a number of different ways), they correctly argued that faith in, and reverence for, God, must be considered as separate from the duties of running the government of a country.

One does not need to be a believer, nor does one need to be indoctrinated by facile bits of propaganda to be a proper citizen of the United States (or any other country). Nor are either of the above required to fufill the needs of patriotism and support for the principles of one's country. It can often be more patriotic to oppose our leaders than to support them. My own personal patriotism is expressed as support for the founding principles of our country, not for any particular viewpoint of the time.

While I agree, in basic principle, with the sentiment of the pledge, whether one speaks it or not has little bearing on that persons' value as a citizen or patriot.

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731). -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, 1789) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- (Treaty of Tripoli) "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson (stating that the Common Law does not directly inherit from Christianity). "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Danbury Baptists) "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." -- John Adams ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination -- Thomas Jefferson “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” -- James Madison

the founding fathers adopted "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem - all 3 stanzas. Most people can't sing the second and third, and many americans now don't even know that they exist. the third states simply
"and this be our motto "In God Is Our Trust"". i believe in separation of church and state, but i'm sick to death of politically correct historical revisionists who continually try to rewrite history such as it was in order to degodify it and render it more secularly palatable. >

Star Spangled Banner: written in 1814. Adopted as National Anthem in 1931.

Oh say can you see my-y-eyes if you can then my hair's to short.....

#52 by Bangkokboy - 11/5/2003 2:34:52 AM the founding fathers adopted "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem - all 3 stanzas. Most people can't sing the second and third, and many americans now don't even know that they exist. the third states simply "and this be our motto "In God Is Our Trust"".

Hehe...you must have missed my earlier post about that

When I was in school (which was over 13 years ago) the pledge was not something that you *had* to say, but you had the choice to say it.  What is so wrong with reaffirming your belief in your nation on a daily basis?

It just seems that people forget the promises they make.  They forget simple things- like the vows they take when they get married.  Why is it so hard to believe that a little reaffirmation now and then is not a bad thing?  The pledge is not about God.  It's not about the government.  It's pledging your allegiance to your nation.  Why is that a bad thing?  What's so wrong with pride and faith in your country?

If they want to remove "God", they can just go back to the original pledge.  It means the same thing, but is less politically fueled.  (It's funny that the "God" part was added due to "politics" in the first place.)

By the way, iirc, the "In God We Trust" motto on money comes from that verse in the Star Spangled Banner.

Duality kind of odd how it shows it's at times ugly head...[

quote]Children, although they must retain the right to be PROTECTED by the law should not claim the same rights that adults should.

Gee IPlural
I wan't aware that I was talking about video games or 'doing' politicians
I thought I was talking about patriotism and children's right to choose under and with their parents' guidance.
Possibly if these things were discussed on a more local level within the committees and forums provided by the educational institutions and parents were active in them, it wouldn't have to go to the high courts to be decided. I also regret the fact that the public isn't being given a chance to vote directly on the issue.

I don't mind if you disagree with me but your personal insults are beneath you. I'm not on this board to convince anyone of anything. I may or may not be swayed to change my position given the input from the obviously diverse and intelligent crowd we have here. I'm open to change if I'm convinced that my views are in error or founded on a deficit of information. In this instance I haven't been convinced that it's an issue that needs to waste tax dollars and valuable time. There are more critical issues that I believe need to take precident in our courts.

Karma, there is nothing wrong with that, I guess, although it's not something I would do personaly.
But I think it's something that should be done spontaneously and with honesty. Not "scheduled". It's when it's organised and put on the agenda that it starts smelling like propaganda and brain washing.  Besides such a pledge doesn't need to be done aloud. What would prevent a kid who UNDERSTANDS its meaning, to do his own pledge before he starts the day?

#58 by paxx - 11/5/2003 9:15:01 AM Karma, there is nothing wrong with that, I guess, although it's not something I would do personaly. But I think it's something that should be done spontaneously and with honesty. Not "scheduled". It's when it's organised and put on the agenda that it starts smelling like propaganda and brain washing. Besides such a pledge doesn't need to be done aloud. What would prevent a kid who UNDERSTANDS its meaning, to do his own pledge before he starts the day?

The problem is, how many people have a flag handy at all times to pledge to?  The "scheduled" time is the block of time reserved before class that allows the student to participate if they want to. 

I would also say that this time should be allowed for any silent prayers or thoughts that the students wants instead of the pledge.  But, if you quit having that time slot, then when will the student have the chance?

Of course, I also have a huge nautical style flag pole in my yard that flies an American flag, the Michigan state flag, and a flag of choice- so I might have a different view point on a lot of this than others will   it's just the way I am. 

I don't mean nothing bad by saying this buttttt the Flag and the Pledge all this kind of stuff always makes me feel uneasy or something, cuz when ppl begin to rise up such symbols or whatever you want to call it, it just seems to divide ppl up more and start trouble...

plus when we are at war everyone pulls out their flags and get riled up "together" and unites, when the war is over everyone is back to killing their nextdoor neighbors etc... hehe
(pretty much a turn off for me)
[Message Edited]

Paxx:

I think you are way overthinking it. It sounds like you are equating this with a prayer of legally-binding oath or something. It is really just a lesson in citizenship, a reiteration of vocabulary. Unlike the National Anthem, this is something that is really non-existant outside of school, so you could easily consider it educational in nature.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

This is a mini-history lesson. You can almost follow eras in American history as it progresses. With the exception of 'under God', I can't really equate that with indoctrination, because it doesn't actually translate to any sort of practice or bias. Words like Republic, Liberty, Justice aren't really concepts of debatable value, are they?

As a Canadian, you can understand the importance of a binding national identity. If there is no uniting theme, a concept like unity, indivisibility, is really hard to impress on people. I think the Pledge is a way to reiterate 200 years of painful, bloody lessons about the struggle to unite what might otherwise be splintered by divisive, conflicting interests.

Sure, the 'under God' thing can go with no real harm done, but I don't think there is anything sinister about the pledge itself. I'm not comfortable with a *cough*nihilistic*cough* attitude that there is never any reason for tradition or ceremony, that everything of the kind is either sinister or 'meaningless'. I see the "So what?" theme a lot when Canadians talk about American current events, but I also its effect on Canadian current events. The benefits are debatable.


[Message Edited]

An Immigrant to Australia only 'pledges' once.

I guess they're just blessed with better memories....

As a Canadian, you can understand the importance of a binding national identity.

Actually, not really.
Please re-read what I wrote about how most Canadians feel about Canada. 
And about "indivisibility", well that's yet another issue, if you have followed Canadian politics a little.  There are a few secession movements in Canada. More in Quebec than any other places, but they still exist in other provinces too.
Think of Canada more like a Union, than a real country. People in Canada usually have a much stronger regional pride than a national one.

Footsie #45:

It is still up to responsible adults to make responsible decisions for the innocents in their care.

Perhaps I've missed something here. I agree with your statement 100% but the parent takes priority as theresponsible adult in this situation (in most situations I think). It sounds like the parents' views are being overridden? And please don't take this (or IP's) statements as personal attack. I mean no such thing and I'm dead sure IP doesn't either.

Paxx, I'm a fellow Canadian and you've pretty much hit the nail. There are times when I feel patriotic as all get out and I personally love Canada and can't imagine life anywhere else. Less winter would be ok though. That said, I've never seen the need to obsess about it. A few of you might remember the Vietnam fallout years - "my country, right or wrong and love it or leave it". I call that obsession. (obcession? nah doesn't look right)



[Message Edited]

"There are a few secession movements... "

Yes, that was my point. I assumed that mattered for some reason, but I guess not. Sorry, I'll try not to impose the whole 'nation' status thing on you guys.

OK, so your point was because in Canada there are some secessionist political groups, that it's a reason why the idea of unity be more solidly endoctrinated?
Well, I disagree. You see, as I said, in Canada most provinces or regions fight for their own interest. And that's the way most people like it. Actually, historically, the central government had a very minimal role, most of the decisions being taken locally by the provinces.  But, through the years, it has been forcing itself more and more into provincial juridictions, and a lot of people resent that.  The day when the Canadian government decides to take a decision that will entirely go against local values or interests, that's the day when that province may very well decide to separate.
Unlike the US, Canada is not a federation, but a confederation.  Check out the difference, and you will understand why the notion of national pride isn't so important in Canada.  Nobody in Canada, I trust, feels Canadian at all costs. 
For example, if Canada decided one day to make English only the official language of the country, that's the day Quebec gets out of the confederation; no second thouhgt about it, and the opinion would pretty much be unanymous.  But of course, there is no chance that would ever happen, precisely because of that reason.

Paxx, like most familys we have our squabbles. Alberta yabbles about separation from time to time as well but I don't think anyone takes it too seriously. I like what you said about Canadian citizenship being a rather comfortable relationship. I just don't picture a daily pledge of alligiance here.

It makes sense historically, Garry.
The reason Canada exists is three-fold mainly.
1- The colonies needed a natural trading mechanism in order to ensure a better economy.  Joining in one country seemed a good way to start to trade between themselves.
2- The USA was a military threat. They were less likely to attempt an invasion if the North American Colonies were unified.
3- England didn't want the expense of defending the colonies against the US, they therefore encouraged them to join as one single country with its own military forces.

That's about it. For the rest, each colony had their own interests, their own values, and had no intentions of letting somebody else decide upon their own affairs.  That state of mind got carried over through history, and that's why we have today 3 parties in Ottawa, elected by 3 different regions: the Alliance (Western Canada), the Liberal (Ontario), and the Bloc (Quebec).  Canada is realy more a Union of Provinces than an actual country.

Paxx:

Canada is realy more a Union of Provinces than an actual country.

I agree - interesting though as my understanding of the USA is that is exactly what the intent is/was there. AFAIK (and I could be off base) Texas is the state that most associates with that idea.

We've managed to hijack this thread rather well I think

Paxx, I agree with you. This whole "pledge" thing is very hard to understand for non US-citizens.
Whenever I see it being done (on TV) I really can't help but think it is political propaganda and brain washing. Anything that is repeated on and on will influence your sub-conscious to a certain degree. I myself don't know of any other western country who does a similar thing or does have the need for it.

Gee I was born and raised in America. You were born and raised in Canada. Great. Good. We got that all settled. You do your thing. I'll do mine. Don't cram yours down my throat and I won't return the disfavor. Peace.

Oh but you are more than welcome to discuss any matter of Canadian politics that ticks you off. I may even agree with you, or I may not. Nevertheless it could be fun. 

Pssst...hey Patric.....wanta borrow my gun...???

Since I believe that this country was somewhat found on GOD I will say this:

A house devided against itself can not stand.