|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I'm surprised people are defending the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, it does actually have some seriously fascist undertones. It's not compulsory, by requirement of the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean it's not fuckin' weird and creepy. At least the Hand-over-Heart is better than the previous Nazi-salute thing. It's still creepy and weird. I mean, I recited it when I was kid, but that's just because it wasn't that big a deal.
And the "liberty and justice for all" thing sounds like exactly the kind of indoctrinated doublespeak that a fascist country would use. It's not in its favor. It just makes it more creepy. Oh, and did you know that the fasces is used a lot in United States imagery? But I guess fascism took that symbol because it's a cool symbol.
It's only States that can't secede from the US. Didn't we get rid of the Phillipines because they hated us so much? I don't think there's a issue if Guam decided to rise up. But once you're a state, always a state. Much to the chagrin of Rick Perry.
|
To be fair, the fasces predates fascism by millennia, and doesn't really have much at all to do with fascism. Plus, it's a pretty noble symbol, historically speaking.
|
On July 19 2013 08:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 08:05 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2013 07:14 aksfjh wrote:On July 19 2013 07:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 19 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2013 06:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 19 2013 06:35 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 19 2013 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2013 06:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You can't secede in the US. That was settled in our civil war. Once in, there's no out. The union is indivisible. Was just responding to your "in what European country can you actively oppose the gov" with a relevant example. In the UK you can and they have been for years with democratic devolution and a referendum on independence coming. That's how liberty works. Yeah, I know what you were saying and I was responding to it. We do things different in the US. Don't assume that different is worse, just because your own nationalism demands it. You think I'm in favour of letting people decide on the governance of themselves just because it's what my country does and I'm a nationalist, even in the case of the division of my nation? That makes no sense. You're basically saying "my country does it better." That's because it does. But I'm saying so objectively. There's no point in going "my country ceases to be better than yours" for reasons of pride because it ceases to be. Seems pretty subjective to me. We don't have to constantly redraw our boarders to get along. Is that not a positive? If only we could redraw Texas smaller in order to get along... On another topic, am I to believe that children should recite some wishy washy statement of positive feelings instead of allegiance to the republic? Feel free to point out what's wishy washy about what I wrote. I'm genuinely curious as to which phrase or sentence you think isn't absolutely true. As to your question: yes. Absolutely, yes. Children cannot pledge allegiance to anything because they're children, so a statement of positivity is better by default, since at least it's not masquerading as an oath to a sovereign nation. Second, what's so good about pledging allegiance to "the republic"? I don't understand what you think is so particularly important about declaring allegiance to this republic when you could instead declare allegiance to the principles which promote moral behaviour and responsible citizenship (you know, like the stuff I mentioned about being virtuous rather than a shitty person). Show nested quote +These same schools teach that there are debates, the constitution may be amended, wars have been protested, and rulers may be voted out. If there's a democratic effort to remove "under God" etc, that can be done. No shit there could be a democratic effort to remove "under God," but unfortunately there are a shitload of people in America who actually believe that America is a nation "under God" and who have no problem promoting religion because they really think that non-Christians are either irrelevant or going to Hell. The point of having things like courts and constitutions and bills of rights and so on and so forth is so that even when "the people" make a majority decision on some absolutely fucking moronic, it doesn't become the law of the land. Sometimes, this doesn't work out, since the SCOTUS sometimes makes weird decisions about things, but usually it works out eventually. Show nested quote + Does anybody believing in equality, social justice, and the lot have the political courage to propose that? Yes, I'm sure many people do, but considering that it would be a total waste of time, nobody is going to bother. It would be voted down instantly on partisan grounds because it would be perceived by the Christian right as trying to legislate atheism or take God away from America or ignore the "Christian heritage" or whatever. It doesn't matter; it would be enough to stir up enough popular support to make pursuing such a movement unfeasible or counter-productive. What's the point of putting all your marbles in the basket to fix something that should be fixed when all it's going to do is stop you from getting the rest of your platform done because ideological people will associate you with anything from persecution to Satanism. Politics is about picking your battles carefully. What's more important: making sure that the Tea Party doesn't get to cut everything after the next election, or fixing injustices that, for the time being at least, don't leave people without houses over their heads? Show nested quote +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. Heck, it even announces the symbol of the flag, even as the burning of it, done by protestors, symbolizes something else. If the flag stands for the republic, which I don't dispute, then why bother pledging allegiance to it? It's like saying "I pledge allegiance to y, and the x which equals y." Redundant.
What does "promoting peace rather than war" mean to a kid? That's subject to interpretation. If you can name a modern day movement trying to tell young adults to advocate war and denigrate peace, then I'll say the term isn't devoid of meaning. Promote love rather than hate? Equality rather than division? Justice rather than injustice? These are rhetorical phrases by demagogues. It is the individual person who sees something as hateful, or a proposition as divisive, or some law as sanctioning injustice. These aren't big debates that America stands apart as supporting. They're weasel words for use by moralizers. Your pledge may be useful for some private group of "Happy Loving Fun Time" Youths of the Future, but is just a meandering meaningless statement of ... who knows. You might as well declare yourselves Pro-Apple Pie and Motherhood.
As to your question: yes. Absolutely, yes. Children cannot pledge allegiance to anything because they're children, so a statement of positivity is better by default, since at least it's not masquerading as an oath to a sovereign nation. Second, what's so good about pledging allegiance to "the republic"? I don't understand what you think is so particularly important about declaring allegiance to this republic when you could instead declare allegiance to the principles which promote moral behaviour and responsible citizenship (you know, like the stuff I mentioned about being virtuous rather than a shitty person).
Huh? Pledge allegiance to moral values? That's tantamount to pledging your allegiance to a dictionary's definition of words. It is their future decision which moral values to hold dear and which to reject. Responsible citizenship is promoted with a pledge. You don't have to include the exceptions which might tear your from support in the actual pledge. Or perhaps, you sign on to a cause by saying, "I Shiori support this cause unless the cause violates this and that, or departs from this primary holding of my moral creed, and willingly depart should this cause go here or there! So help me God!" Lunacy.
No shit there could be a democratic effort to remove "under God," but unfortunately there are a shitload of people in America who actually believe that America is a nation "under God" and who have no problem promoting religion because they really think that non-Christians are either irrelevant or going to Hell.
The point of having things like courts and constitutions and bills of rights and so on and so forth is so that even when "the people" make a majority decision on some absolutely fucking moronic, it doesn't become the law of the land. Sometimes, this doesn't work out, since the SCOTUS sometimes makes weird decisions about things, but usually it works out eventually.
Cowardice. The shitload of people that believe something should have no right to have their voice heard in your government. I think you arbitrarily marginalize your opponents in the same vein as somebody who proposes the smart people run things and the dumb people need to know their place. Self-government be damned, if the population doesn't want something, we'll ram it through!
If you can't convince enough to your cause that "under God" should be removed, please be kind enough to realize you can't inject your will on the people you're trying to govern. You marginalize your opposition as those that want to promote religion and call non-Christians irrelevant. Please, if your rational public has a majority then defeat those thoughts in the world of ideas, and if you can't convince these people you say cannot be reconciled to your views, then leave and govern somebody else.
I don't know if the Supreme Court decisions usually work out eventually, they've made a lot of questionable ones in the past. The bill of rights guarantees those enumerated things in 10 amendments and have no prejudice for what one man deems moronic. They exist to limit government control, and have sadly not limited a government that dismisses certain amendments.
Yes, I'm sure many people do, but considering that it would be a total waste of time, nobody is going to bother. It would be voted down instantly on partisan grounds because it would be perceived by the Christian right as trying to legislate atheism or take God away from America or ignore the "Christian heritage" or whatever. It doesn't matter; it would be enough to stir up enough popular support to make pursuing such a movement unfeasible or counter-productive. What's the point of putting all your marbles in the basket to fix something that should be fixed when all it's going to do is stop you from getting the rest of your platform done because ideological people will associate you with anything from persecution to Satanism. Politics is about picking your battles carefully. What's more important: making sure that the Tea Party doesn't get to cut everything after the next election, or fixing injustices that, for the time being at least, don't leave people without houses over their heads?
You're entitled to declaring your opposition as partisan. Go ahead, label your opposition as stemming from people that label you as persecutors or Satanists. The Tea Party wants to deprive your people from houses, from food, from rights, from liberties, whatever. Don't impose your will on the people just because you declare it unnecessary to convince others that the country is headed to a state establishment of religion. I don't want any child to be coerced by the teacher to put his right hand on his chest and recite the pledge. The teacher may lead that classroom in the Pledge of Allegiance until a democratically elected Congress abolishes it. You fix your injustices, preserve everything you believe in that my friends in the Tea Party vow to cut, and we'll see what the American people say to what is justice and injustice, what is wasteful spending and necessary spending.
If the flag stands for the republic, which I don't dispute, then why bother pledging allegiance to it? It's like saying "I pledge allegiance to y, and the x which equals y." Redundant.
We honor a nation that has provided protection against tyranny and despotism for many generations. The armed forces of the United States give their lives to protect the idea that the flag represents. Children granted security by the republic's actions are not beyond giving honor to that idea as well. Or do they need to be taught the names of every man and women that has died protecting that republic before they can legitimately pledge their allegiance to it? Children giving honor to the idea of self governance defended by force is not antithetical to rights or freedoms. If they've been taught to oppose it by their families, then stay seated and deal with 2 minutes of wasted class time. They'll learn in time what the American concept means in bucking trends of the 18th century. How revolutionary the ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence (if its still declared constitutional to teach it) and the Constitution of the United States was to the status quo. Then free individuals can make their choice whether to support the current governance or oppose it, support the judgement of the courts or call them politically motivated persons acting against justice.
I wonder why the intellectual thinkers will do things ostensibly for the good of the majority but in direct opposition to their positions, and call upon abstract rights to reinforce their position but not acknowledge any other interpretation other than their own. These high minded people disparaging the people they seek to write laws governing are the essence of despotic rule, only the interpretations by them of "equality" and "fairness" will see the light of day.
|
On July 19 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:I'm surprised people are defending the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, it does actually have some seriously fascist undertones. It's not compulsory, by requirement of the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean it's not fuckin' weird and creepy. At least the Hand-over-Heart is better than the previous Nazi-salute thing. It's still creepy and weird. I mean, I recited it when I was kid, but that's just because it wasn't that big a deal. And the "liberty and justice for all" thing sounds like exactly the kind of indoctrinated doublespeak that a fascist country would use. It's not in its favor. It just makes it more creepy. Oh, and did you know that the fasces is used a lot in United States imagery? But I guess fascism took that symbol because it's a cool symbol. It's only States that can't secede from the US. Didn't we get rid of the Phillipines because they hated us so much? I don't think there's a issue if Guam decided to rise up. But once you're a state, always a state. Much to the chagrin of Rick Perry.
I find the hand over the heart thing creepier than the roman salute. Its symbolic, psychological nature is not to be underestimated.
|
What does "promoting peace rather than war" mean to a kid? That's subject to interpretation. If you can name a modern day movement trying to tell young adults to advocate war and denigrate peace, then I'll say the term isn't devoid of meaning.
What does promoting peace rather than war mean? Gee, I dunno, probably something like trying to resolve conflicts peacefully rather than fighting about them. What does "justice and liberty for all" mean to a kid? It's a hell of a lot more subject to interpretation (whose justice, what kind of justice, who has the authority, who is "all," how much liberty, how can one have liberty and still be subservient to justice etc.) than "peace > war." Of all the ones I listed, you picked pretty much the least controversial one. In what way can you interpret "promote peace rather than war" to be anything but good without twisting peace or war beyond recognition?
Promote love rather than hate? Equality rather than division? Justice rather than injustice? These are rhetorical phrases by demagogues. It is the individual person who sees something as hateful, or a proposition as divisive, or some law as sanctioning injustice.
Nations are comprised of individual people. The person swearing the pledge is an individual. If "justice > injustice" and "equality > division" are rhetorical demagoguery, then what, pray tell, is "liberty and justice" supposed to mean? Either it's just as much of a platitude as any item I listed or justice and liberty are special nouns that defy interpretation. Given that your country has a long history (which is by no means concluded) of obvious injustice and infringement on liberty, despite these values apparently underpinning the republic itself, at the behest of the American people.
These aren't big debates that America stands apart as supporting.
That's the point. American values shouldn't be unique. They should be things that are good because they're good, and every country should want to adopt them because they're good ideas. Swearing allegiance to one nation or another is nonsensical, because a nation isn't a clearly defined principle or set of principles (no, your constitution doesn't help you here, given that it gets reinterpreted by the SCOTUS regularly, and then even those interpretations can be struck down) that you pledge allegiance to. Nations change, and nations should change. Are you swearing to the nation as it exists today? To some idealized version of it (which is inherently subjective)? Or to the platitudes of 'justice and liberty" you so detest?
They're weasel words for use by moralizers. Your pledge may be useful for some private group of "Happy Loving Fun Time" Youths of the Future, but is just a meandering meaningless statement of ... who knows. You might as well declare yourselves Pro-Apple Pie and Motherhood.
True or false: if one group lived by the pledge I made up in one minute and another group lived by the values espoused in the Pledge of Allegiance, which one would be comprised of more morally sound people? The point is that if you separate the ethically void "Flag and the republic it represents i.e. America" from the actual values espoused by the Pledge, all you have is an indivisible nation, "under God" (whatever that means) with justice and liberty for all. Aside from the under God bit, pretty much every civilized nation espouses liberty and justice, along with sovereign unity (with a couple exceptions) so whatever American uniqueness you think the Pledge has is limited entirely to the flag itself and the word America. As far as I know, you didn't invent republics, either.
Huh? Pledge allegiance to moral values?
Actually, I was responding to your hypothetical "statement of positivity" so it wasn't strictly speaking a pledge, since, as I pointed out, children aren't capable of making pledges since they are children.
That's tantamount to pledging your allegiance to a dictionary's definition of words.
Are you trying to assert that there is somehow something objective or non-aribtrary about America's Pledge? Do you think "justice and liberty" are well defined? Is the "republic" well defined? Wasn't America ultimately founded by signing a particular document and then later drafting/signing a Constitution? Hmm...that sounds an awful lot like pledging allegiance to somebody's definition of words. Or is it permissible here because, I don't know, the Constitution is really old? Does it matter that there are different schools of thought on what the Constitution means? Does it matter that language changes? How about that the Pledge has changed?
Ah! If only things were immutable and pure like American freedom...
It is their future decision which moral values to hold dear and which to reject. Responsible citizenship is promoted with a pledge.
Oh? I don't recall specifying that morality was a matter of opinion, or do you mean to tell me that your prized justice and liberty are also matters of opinion? Responsible citizenship means what, exactly?
You don't have to include the exceptions which might tear your from support in the actual pledge. Or perhaps, you sign on to a cause by saying, "I Shiori support this cause unless the cause violates this and that, or departs from this primary holding of my moral creed, and willingly depart should this cause go here or there! So help me God!" Lunacy.
I don't remember making any exceptions in the pledge I listed. If you seriously believe that allegiance to some abstract, imaginary fantasy of a nation as a thing that exists apart from the people which comprise it is better for making people responsible citizens than instilling them to treat other people in a moral fashion, then I'm not really sure what to tell you. Actually, yeah I am: everything that's in your pledge, except swearing to a particular flag because that's a waste of time, is contained in my pledge.
Cowardice. The shitload of people that believe something should have no right to have their voice heard in your government. I think you arbitrarily marginalize your opponents in the same vein as somebody who proposes the smart people run things and the dumb people need to know their place. Self-government be damned, if the population doesn't want something, we'll ram it through!
You're the one who brought up (at the end of your post in a wishy washy show of patriotism) America's opposition to tyranny. Well, it's funny you mention it. Things should be made law or revoked on their merits. Usually, the population is in a pretty good position to assess the merits of a particular law that affects them, and they can be trusted to get the general picture on black and white issues in a direct referendum.
Except not all the time, which is why you bother having a constitution at all: so that the majority can't try to implement slavery again, even if there was some incentive to do so or a large enough number of people that wanted it for it to be a contentious issue. On the other hand, your constitution is obviously not perfect, and while it's all well and good to talk about proposing amendments and whatnot, the fact of the matter is that some things in America, both contemporary and historical, are embarrassing from the point of view of human rights viz. lawmaking.
Consider that desegregation didn't occur until the 1960's. Now, you might say that it's all well and good and ended up being pretty democratic and a movement by the people for the people, but then think of it this way: what if you were born in the early 20th century as a Negro? If you had a time machine, and went back to the early 20th century, and some black American (whose parents had perhaps been freed from slavery) lamented to you about the state of a nation which professes liberty but has never accorded it to black people, would you spout some stupid line like "I think you arbitrarily marginalize your opponents in the same vein as somebody who proposes the smart people run things and the dumb people need to know their place"? Or would you boast that in a mere sixty years, that man will see desegregation happen. It only took, you know, a solid ~190 years from black people to obtain de jure equality.
While America is no doubt better today than it was in the 60s or earlier, that's not the point: it still seems to be behind on things that are just flat-out obvious to the rest of the Western world. Setting aside "political" issues like national health care or that there are actually large numbers of Americans who think welfare promotes laziness, lets think about some human rights issues: the death penalty is legal in many parts of America; gay marriage is illegal in many parts of America, and politicians actually campaign on this issue; the morning after pill was RX-only until 2006; the US refuses to endorse any UN resolution that acknowledges that Palestinians have valid complaints about at least some things; refusing to accept the Rome Statute; the government has admitted to torturing people in recent years and the administration refuses to ratify treaties against torture; violated the rights of tonnes of people as a result of the impotent War on Terror; and so on.
So tell me: am I "arbitrarily marginalizing" America for doing the above and more? Am I proposing that the smart people run things and that the dumb people know their place? I guess if torture, the death penalty, and god knows what else are really bad, someone will democratically start a movement to overturn them. First, though, I expect we'll need a democratic movement to determine that the sky is blue, or that creationism isn't science.
Oh wait.
If you can't convince enough to your cause that "under God" should be removed, please be kind enough to realize you can't inject your will on the people you're trying to govern. You marginalize your opposition as those that want to promote religion and call non-Christians irrelevant. Please, if your rational public has a majority then defeat those thoughts in the world of ideas, and if you can't convince these people you say cannot be reconciled to your views, then leave and govern somebody else.
How are you supposed to convince a group of people (a large number of whom actually believe believe that permitting gay marriage will literally encourage pedophilia, destroy "the family," make people gay, promote sin, persecute Christians, and/or destroy religion, among other imaginative things) to do anything even remotely associated with removing religious influence? We're talking about a country in which a loud and numerous group of people questioned the ability of the President-elect on the basis of him not being a die-hard evangelical.
I don't know if the Supreme Court decisions usually work out eventually, they've made a lot of questionable ones in the past. The bill of rights guarantees those enumerated things in 10 amendments and have no prejudice for what one man deems moronic. They exist to limit government control, and have sadly not limited a government that dismisses certain amendments.
I'm sure they don't have much prejudice for whatever you believe the government dismissed, either. Now, if you and I were having a rational discussion concerned with trying to improve things, we'd come to the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with the governmental structure, constitution, and bill of rights. Instead, though, you're gushing about how awesome America is and responsible citizenship and freedom from tyranny and brave soldiers and whatever.
You're entitled to declaring your opposition as partisan. Go ahead, label your opposition as stemming from people that label you as persecutors or Satanists.
The evangelical Christian right absolutely has argued that they are being persecuted by having to pay taxes (which might fund birth control) or by having to witness gay people existing or perhaps getting married. There were a small (but too large) number of people calling Obama the fucking Anti-Christ when he got elected, so I'd say I'm being pretty factual in my range of labeling (it was anything from prosecutor to Satanist, btw, not one or the other; there's lots of room in between). The point is that changing a fucking word in the Pledge would be spun (and has already been spun every time it's come up) into some sort of concerted attack on religion. You can't convince people of this kind of thing. They're just ideologues. you'd have better luck trying to convince a toddler having a tantrum that his food tastes good. What are you supposed to do? Go find another toddler to raise? No. Sadly, these people actually vote based on their bizarre beliefs, which means that if you're going to alienate them, you better choose well, because you can only alienate them once before they start having protests and forming lobbies and all this other nonsense.
No politician is stupid enough to waste his/her political career trying to change two words in the Pledge, and nobody is stupid enough to sign on to such a project because it's just going to give stupid people (and various biased media outlets) ammunition to discredit literally everything you stand for (on the basis of TWO WORDS!!!!). It's well attested to in American history.
The Tea Party wants to deprive your people from houses, from food, from rights, from liberties, whatever.
Actually, I think the Tea Party is comprised of a group of people who (mostly) have good intentions and valid concerns. I don't agree with them, and I think they're wrong about pretty much everything, and I think that most of their rhetoric is flat-out idiotic, and I even think that a lot of their policies, if implemented, would really hurt a lot of people. But I don't think the Tea Party is motivated by dogma (at least not usually) or by abject prejudice (except in a couple of specific cases, perhaps). I think they really do want to make America function better, and their concerns in that regard are mostly economic ones combined with a bit of (arguably incidental) social conservatism. I can deal with that, because you can actually debate people on those kinds of things. You can say "this is why I don't think your economic plan will help poor people" or "I think you're failing to account for [this]."
But you can't do that with someone who just says "homosexual sex is evil" or "murderers should be killed because they're fucking scum" or "we should torture any piece of shit terrorist" because it's just ideology and yelling, and unfortunately it's really popular. To me, that, more than anything, is the weakness of America's noble emphasis on free speech, limited SCOTUS intervention, state-federal distinction, and basically the general idea of letting "the people" decide as much as possible. I actually think it could work, but a lot of things need to be added to the bill of rights/constitution ASAP, so that every ethical doesn't drag on for 50 years after everyone else has solved it.
Don't impose your will on the people just because you declare it unnecessary to convince others that the country is headed to a state establishment of religion. I don't want any child to be coerced by the teacher to put his right hand on his chest and recite the pledge.
I don't think the country is headed to a state establishment of religion in a broad sense. I do think that "under God" in the Pledge is misleading (grammatically and historically) as well as insensitive, meaningless, and unfair because it opens every single Congressional session.
The teacher may lead that classroom in the Pledge of Allegiance until a democratically elected Congress abolishes it.
That's bad, though. People, even a minority of people, should not be expected/encouraged (because let's be honest, a kid in school is incredibly influenced by their teacher's example) to behave in a certain way if that way implies the acceptance of an ideology that they simply aren't in a position to accept because they don't understand it.
You fix your injustices, preserve everything you believe in that my friends in the Tea Party vow to cut, and we'll see what the American people say to what is justice and injustice, what is wasteful spending and necessary spending.
Why does it only matter what "the American people" say with respect to what injustice or justice are? Are the American people infallible? Do they have some special ability to make legal decisions? Obviously not, given that they've been wrong many times (like any other large body) and given that they use courts rather than just having people vote on whether someone is guilty. The problem with your thinking is that if there are three people, two of whom believe X, and one of whom believes not-X, belief in X is not made twice as valid (and certainly not true) than belief in not-X. Whether X is a belief worthy of respect depends on what X is, not on who holds it.
If the flag stands for the republic, which I don't dispute, then why bother pledging allegiance to it? It's like saying "I pledge allegiance to y, and the x which equals y." Redundant.
We honor a nation that has provided protection against tyranny and despotism for many generations.
While I don't deny that your nation has done this, and done it passionately, it has also supported them in different instances, so...
The armed forces of the United States give their lives to protect the idea that the flag represents.
Not really. Sometimes, certainly, but not any time in recent memory. I'd wager that not a single soldier active in the last twenty-five years (low ball estimate) has actually died protecting the US from any tangible threat. Why? Because there haven't been any threats. The US soldiers are great, honourable people; don't get me wrong. They're very selfless and very committed to their missions. But there just isn't much to protect the flag from these days. Nobody is invading America or trying to tear the republic down by military action. Hell, no military is trying to even attack liberty and justice within America, really.
I mean, this isn't WWII, or something. There's no serious threat to the US's sovereignty from anyone, and there hasn't been for a long time, and definitely not in any way resembling total war.
Children granted security by the republic's actions are not beyond giving honor to that idea as well.
Um...well that's dumb, because it presumes that somehow the US army is directly and necessarily responsible for letting these children grow up securely, which is completely unfalsifiable at best and pretty much obviously false at worst. The West in general is pretty safe for any child right now, and it's not because of some huge war ten years ago, or something. It's because of many intersecting factors, one of which is probably related to the military, but it doesn't really make any sense to say that children owe their security to the military anymore than the US owes its security to the British who settled it. I don't see you guys pledging to the Queen because of that...
Or do they need to be taught the names of every man and women that has died protecting that republic before they can legitimately pledge their allegiance to it? Children giving honor to the idea of self governance defended by force is not antithetical to rights or freedoms.
I wasn't aware the the Pledge said "self-governance defended by worse." I could point out that pledging to something is different from honouring it, but it would be a boring digression. In addition, the indivisibility of the nation directly contradicts "self-governance" because it disallows secession, so...
Also, why doesn't America allow other countries to govern themselves, if they so highly prize the right to do so?
If they've been taught to oppose it by their families, then stay seated and deal with 2 minutes of wasted class time. They'll learn in time what the American concept means in bucking trends of the 18th century. How revolutionary the ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence (if its still declared constitutional to teach it) and the Constitution of the United States was to the status quo. Then free individuals can make their choice whether to support the current governance or oppose it, support the judgement of the courts or call them politically motivated persons acting against justice.
Oh, I agree, the Founding Fathers of the US were extremely smart and very, very innovative/revolutionary for their time. But that's the thing: "for their time." The Constitution was a uniquely excellent document when it was written. Today, it's a good foundation, for the most part, but it's not an infallible document, and it's no better than the constitutions of any other developed nations (it may even be worse in some regards).
I wonder why the intellectual thinkers will do things ostensibly for the good of the majority but in direct opposition to their positions, and call upon abstract rights to reinforce their position but not acknowledge any other interpretation other than their own.
I think there's a difference between "let's not allow people to discriminate against black people by majority vote" and despotism.
These high minded people disparaging the people they seek to write laws governing are the essence of despotic rule, only the interpretations by them of "equality" and "fairness" will see the light of day.
As if the interpretations of a large group of people, many of whom have no understanding whatsoever of what the question is even about beyond a media snippet, and many of whom must accept that they will disagree with at least some of the things their chosen candidate endorses, are somehow more valid than those reached by logical reasoning?
|
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) bought stock in Star Scientific, a now-embattled dietary supplement maker, just weeks after the company sued the state over a tax dispute.
A report released on Thursday by Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring (D) made that clear, and left open the possibility that Cuccinelli personally learned about the lawsuit before he bought the stock. Cuccinelli’s office handled the lawsuit until early April, when Cuccinelli, who is currently running for governor, announced he would recuse his office and appoint outside counsel to handle the matter.
Herring’s report, a review of Cuccinelli’s financial disclosure forms conducted at the attorney general’s request, found no evidence that he broke the law when he failed to disclose ownership of Star Scientific stock or gifts received from Jonnie Williams, the company’s chief executive officer.
“Although one cannot help but question whether repeated omissions of gifts from Williams are coincidence or a pattern reflecting intent to conceal, the disclosure of several other gifts and benefits from Williams in his original statements suggests that the Attorney General was not attempting to conceal the relationship,” Herring’s report concluded. “Furthermore, we find no evidence that in his Statements the [attorney general] intentionally mischaracterized gifts and benefits from Star Scientific and Williams.”
Source
|
I've heard politicians on the demagoguery bent yell out how so and so's policies will inevitably lead to war. Frankly, there are things worth going to war for. Have a neighboring state capture or destroy some of your ships? A principality with missile weapons threatening to attack your cities if you don't capitulate to them? More often, it's the criticism of someone's foreign policy that inflates bad decision making to agitating for war. Putting puerile statements like advocating love instead of hate, peace instead of war, justice instead of injustice, ... life instead of death ... freedom instead of tyranny ... they serve nothing. Any child learning what justice is will know that injustice has a bad connotation. As I said earlier, should you wish to found some smarmy association dedicated to saying words for concepts near-universally acknowledged, go ahead and do it. Your pledge has no place in a classroom.
Your beliefs stand out when you say "your country has a long history (which is by no means concluded) of obvious injustice and infringement on liberty." Maybe we'd be better off inviting our historical cynics to go invent a pledge for us. It's like any self respecting country has to kowtow to international critics when it does business inside its borders. No, we are not characterized by our mistakes but for those times we rose above them and worked past them. Enshrined in our pledge are thoughts this country was founded on. If you desire to know what liberty and justice meant to those that founded our nation, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. You seek to throw out platitudes and call it a pledge, I want a historically based saying that means something.
You call slavery to your side as historical proof that citizens should sometimes not have a say in their governance. I ask you what angels are there that you would entrust it to back then and now? You propose an oxymoron, that a nation be prepared to have their voice squelched if somebody in power, or on some podium, says it is injustice. If it isn't forbidden in the constitution, it can be proposed, such as teachers leading a class in the pledge of allegiance. Let the courts interpret the borderlines and not the politically motivated blowhards. I pledge allegiance to the flag of injustice, which once enslaved blacks, and did not do enough to buck the trend back during the founding ... give me air.
No, sir, the evangelical right thinks that the state calling something a marriage which is not one is an overstep of the state's authority. I don't care how you characterize any religious people in the US, have the backbone to oppose them in elected office, or try and change their views, or get out of constitutionally legal actions. I hear the double standard: your religious opponents are not allowed to keep traditional definition of marriage, are forced to support contraception or abortion that violates their religious views, and yet this same constitution should forbid this kind of speech. I don't see anyone at the federal level forcing every public school to open with the pledge. The Supreme Court has already ruled on forcing an individual to recite it. The allegations of fascist undertones or some nefarious indoctrination behind it is hogwash.
This government was instituted with the idea that the people established it. It was not some enlightened monarch or tea-party evangelical-right bashing citizen that saw the government, it was the people's assent. If you're a child in the United States, protected by its armed forces and the laws, it is not indoctrination to verbalize allegiance to its founding doctrines. Sure, some kids won't understand yet that there were ideas that a monarch could do as he wished with religion and state. They'll learn that in time, at least I hope so. Until then, and until some group of concerned citizens persuades a Congressional majority to de-institute it, it's entirely within a school or school district's prerogative to lead their students in a voluntary pledge. I think the pressing matters for the improvement of the education system do not include the pledge of allegiance.
I didn't expect to be challenged on the role of the armed forces. Rewind 20 years and there were crackpot dictators the world over vowing to toast the country or at least a few thousand in a city. I picture your type sitting beside troops about to be shipped overseas shouting your rhetoric.
I'd wager that not a single soldier active in the last twenty-five years (low ball estimate) has actually died protecting the US from any tangible threat. Why? Because there haven't been any threats.
Don't worry kids, you don't have to honor some nation with an incredible track record of protecting the mainland. The troops aren't needed! If you think pledging your allegiance to a country isn't an example of giving it due honor, then I probably can't persuade you of much here given how you view things.
I talk about allowing some self governance, you cry for the soon return of slavery. Oh well. I guess that's what advocates of political correctness always flee to. Let one guy speak up in a public place about his religion, let anyone speak as to how the country was founded, and lynchings will soon follow. It is still your belief in knowing better than the religious right (or whatever group you seek to marginalize) and having the right to controvert that. I happen to think the constitution, should government return to its precepts, is not outdated and it stands in high contrast to those of other countries that assert this and that positive liberty. For now, fight for your views in the government (and in the activist courts), but do not presume an enlightened state over the people that have stopped the removal of "under God" or other religious words in public contexts. The courts upheld slavery and also struck down decisions limiting civil rights. Their duty going forward is to protect infringement of laws upon freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. If criticizing your religious opponents still does not let your views ascend to the majority, then sit tight and don't moan so much. I mean protest, but every intellectual should remember the vicious rhetoric he levels against the believing folk when he claims the high ground.
|
On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it?
"Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader."
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763
Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works.
indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
|
On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Show nested quote +Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
You really do think that "teaching" is the same thing as "indoctrinating". Given that you think chanting allegiance to the state is the same thing as teaching children about empathy, I doubt we'll ever be on the same page.
|
On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Show nested quote +Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
Does a young child in a class room with the pledge being broadcast across the speakers true have choice like you keep insisting on? Peer pressure. The instinct to follow the teacher. Age and its inherent lack of understanding about what it is?
Heck is it even explained to them that they can chose not to participate? Would they even understand the the explanation
|
On July 19 2013 22:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate Does a young child in a class room with the pledge being broadcast across the speakers true have choice like you keep insisting on? Peer pressure. The instinct to follow the teacher. Age and its inherent lack of understanding about what it is? Heck is it even explained to them that they can chose not to participate? Would they even understand the the explanation
This. I didn't even know that I had a choice when I was a child. I guarantee you that there are very few (if any) schools out there that actually tell theirs students that reciting is a choice.
|
On July 19 2013 22:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate Does a young child in a class room with the pledge being broadcast across the speakers true have choice like you keep insisting on? Peer pressure. The instinct to follow the teacher. Age and its inherent lack of understanding about what it is? Heck is it even explained to them that they can chose not to participate? Would they even understand the the explanation
Do they have a choice? Of course they do. Will they take that choice, or understand the choice? I don't know. Probably not. However, I find the suggestion that we should wait until a child is fully capable of understanding all the philosophical implications and arguments behind a specific behavior before teaching and fostering that behavior to be a bit ridiculous and counter intuitive. Do we wait until a child is fully aware of what sharing is, the philosophical arguments for social behavior and the implications of fostering it, until we teach them that sharing is good and needs to be exercised? Of course not. That is absurd. Likewise, it is absurd to think that fostering a respect for the nation and instilling in children a sense of civic duty is only acceptable once the children have reached an age where they can understand the philosophy behind it.
As much as you want the pledge to be fascist, the comparison is absurd and shows a lack of understanding in both fascism and in the culture and history of the United States of America.
|
On July 19 2013 22:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 22:27 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate Does a young child in a class room with the pledge being broadcast across the speakers true have choice like you keep insisting on? Peer pressure. The instinct to follow the teacher. Age and its inherent lack of understanding about what it is? Heck is it even explained to them that they can chose not to participate? Would they even understand the the explanation This. I didn't even know that I had a choice when I was a child. I guarantee you that there are very few (if any) schools out there that actually tell theirs students that reciting is a choice.
Hey, I made jokes out of the pledge of allegiance when I was in elementary school. My friends thought it was funny.
On the other hand, I also heard stories about kids being punished for making a joke out of the pledge. So that ended quickly.
|
United States41980 Posts
On July 19 2013 22:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 22:27 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2013 21:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 07:47 Eschaton wrote:On July 19 2013 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 19 2013 06:29 Eschaton wrote:
What about "compulsory unification of opinion violates the first amendment" don't you get?
Here is the actual text from the US Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding against a law making recitation of the Pledge compulsory:
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Since I was the first person to bring up the fact that saying the pledge is always a choice... I don't know why you're telling me this. It's everyone else in this thread that seems to think children are forced into saying it. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent." I, the founding fathers, and most of the nation disagree with that notion. You (and anyone else, including the government) are welcome to the opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion is valid or true. And once again: I was the only one in here pointing out that saying the pledge is a choice and is not forced upon anyone so again this is irrelevant. I went through your posts in the thread to see in what context you pointed out that saying the pledge is a choice, but didn't see anything; can you point me to it? "Seriously though, it would be laughable how absurd you are being if it wasn't so fascinating to impressionable people that don't know any better and can't see the clear difference between choosing to pledge yourself to your nation, and being forced to pledge yourself to a supreme leader." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=339#6763Simply because abstaining from reciting the Pledge isn't a crime, doesn't mean that the Pledge isn't strongly encouraged by the state. The only kids I remember as not participating were Jehova's Witnesses, whose dissent was encouraged by their parents, and I did not fully understand until recently. Social as well as institutional pressures are powerful things especially regarding the minds of children, and although I doubt you would agree with me, does construe a wielding of force to produce conformity of opinion. Case in point, if the "majority of the nation" has a mystical concept of the State, did that sentiment produce the Pledge in it's current form, or the other way around?
Obviously the mystical concept of the origins of the State and the authority it exercises is where the Pledge comes from. And once again, there is nothing wrong with the nation indoctrinating children with certain desirable traits and behaviors. What do you think the emphasis on sharing when you're in kindergarten and pre-school is all about? That is indoctrination. Oh, but let me guess, indoctrinating kids into being less selfish is "education" and indoctrinating kids into having a respect for the values their nation is built upon is "brainwashing." Funny how that works. indoctrination: 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate Does a young child in a class room with the pledge being broadcast across the speakers true have choice like you keep insisting on? Peer pressure. The instinct to follow the teacher. Age and its inherent lack of understanding about what it is? Heck is it even explained to them that they can chose not to participate? Would they even understand the the explanation Do they have a choice? Of course they do. Will they take that choice, or understand the choice? I don't know. Probably not. However, I find the suggestion that we should wait until a child is fully capable of understanding all the philosophical implications and arguments behind a specific behavior before teaching and fostering that behavior to be a bit ridiculous and counter intuitive. Do we wait until a child is fully aware of what sharing is, the philosophical arguments for social behavior and the implications of fostering it, until we teach them that sharing is good and needs to be exercised? Of course not. That is absurd. Likewise, it is absurd to think that fostering a respect for the nation and instilling in children a sense of civic duty is only acceptable once the children have reached an age where they can understand the philosophy behind it. As much as you want the pledge to be fascist, the comparison is absurd and shows a lack of understanding in both fascism and in the culture and history of the United States of America.
It's super fucking fascist lol.
|
On July 19 2013 18:12 Danglars wrote:
I've heard politicians on the demagoguery bent yell out how so and so's policies will inevitably lead to war. Frankly, there are things worth going to war for.
I'm skeptical of whether there are any things truly "worth" going to war for, but that's not relevant to my point. Promoting peace rather than war is always a good thing, as even pro-war advocates usually claim that war is a means to lasting peace.
Have a neighboring state capture or destroy some of your ships? A principality with missile weapons threatening to attack your cities if you don't capitulate to them? More often, it's the criticism of someone's foreign policy that inflates bad decision making to agitating for war.
What? I'm not sure if you're aware of American military history over he past 50 years or so, but it was mostly a case of overseas intervention than fighting "a principality with missile weapons threatening to attack your cities if you don't capitulate to them."
Putting puerile statements like advocating love instead of hate, peace instead of war, justice instead of injustice, ... life instead of death ... freedom instead of tyranny ... they serve nothing. Any child learning what justice is will know that injustice has a bad connotation.
Obviously? By all means, if you wish to remove the "instead of" from the pledge I wrote, go ahead. I only included it because we're talking about children, so I figured it'd be best to be as unambiguous as possible.
As I said earlier, should you wish to found some smarmy association dedicated to saying words for concepts near-universally acknowledged, go ahead and do it. Your pledge has no place in a classroom.
"Liberty and justice for all" is near-universally acknowledged, and probably more so than any particular other quality I mentioned.
Your beliefs stand out when you say "your country has a long history (which is by no means concluded) of obvious injustice and infringement on liberty."
How do they stand out? Lots of countries (practically all of them, in fact) have a long history of making mistakes. The point of my statement is that you can't say that America is some grand, ideal entity, with a flawless constitution & bill of rights * so on, when there are so many examples of egregious errors with respect to human rights. If the American system were as near-perfect as you've made it out to be, one would expect that America would be leading the world in pretty much every way with respect to protecting human rights. But it isn't, and it hasn't always done so. Sometimes it does, which is commendable, but sometimes it doesn't in baffling ways.
Maybe we'd be better off inviting our historical cynics to go invent a pledge for us. It's like any self respecting country has to kowtow to international critics when it does business inside its borders.
All "self respecting" countries are accountable to logic. If you think the definition of what constitutes "good" or "evil" changes based on coordinates on the globe, I'm not sure what to tell you. In addition, America has no problem telling other "self-respecting" countries how to conduct business inside their borders, so I'm not sure why they feel that they should be exempt from criticism.
No, we are not characterized by our mistakes but for those times we rose above them and worked past them.
Well, if that's the case, then every country is perfect, in that every country is characterized by the times it did good things rather than did bad ones i.e. mistakes. But that's a pointless judgment to make since it's tautological...
Enshrined in our pledge are thoughts this country was founded on. If you desire to know what liberty and justice meant to those that founded our nation, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Was the Constitution less valid 100 years ago? How about 25 years after it was written? The historical significance or age of a document doesn't make it any less fallible; it just means that it's not particularly objectionable. Also, what does it matter what "liberty and justice" meant to the Founders? While they were brilliant statesmen and philosophers, among other things, questions of liberty and justice are some of the most difficult in all philosophy. To presume that a group solved them in every possible situation for all time by writing a document or two is incredibly silly. Philosophy is a process. Things are improved upon and replaced. That's why many nations amend their constitution regularly or without much associated pomp. For some reason, though, Americans often characterize their constitution as being some sort of divinely inspired document.
You seek to throw out platitudes and call it a pledge, I want a historically based saying that means something.
What does historicity have to do with anything? I agree that a saying should mean something, but that's all that matters, IMO. Whether it was invented yesterday or ten thousand yesterdays ago is of no consequence.
You call slavery to your side as historical proof that citizens should sometimes not have a say in their governance. I ask you what angels are there that you would entrust it to back then and now?
I would entrust it to the noblest angel: rationality. Citizens should always have a say in their governance, but they do not always have to have the entire say, and nor does should their say permit them to disadvantage some minority for reasons of sheer prejudice. That's why things like the bill of rights exist.
You propose an oxymoron, that a nation be prepared to have their voice squelched if somebody in power, or on some podium, says it is injustice.
Not really. Rather, I'd prefer the SCOTUS to take a more active role in striking down laws that are obviously wrong and/or violate the spirit of the constitution (if you think the Founding Fathers wanted the majority to be able to oppress minorities...)
If it isn't forbidden in the constitution, it can be proposed, such as teachers leading a class in the pledge of allegiance. Let the courts interpret the borderlines and not the politically motivated blowhards. I pledge allegiance to the flag of injustice, which once enslaved blacks, and did not do enough to buck the trend back during the founding ... give me air.
????
I didn't ask for "blowhards" to unilaterally implement policy. I stated that there are obvious problems with the bill of rights/constitution, and that fixing those problems is impeded by belief in the functional immutability/transcendence of the constitution. Things should be struck down if they're wrong, if they discriminate, and so on. Waxing poetic about self-governance is great, and all, but if there are only the most minor of checks and balances on such governance, you have no protection against emotionally driven populist reasoning. And that's bad.
No, sir, the evangelical right thinks that the state calling something a marriage which is not one is an overstep of the state's authority.
Considering that "marriage" is neither a precisely defined term outside of the state, nor is it a term which the religious own, I can't see why they think the state extending a legal construct to gay people, which is, from the point of view of the state, functionally equivalent to the legal construct called "marriage," is somehow an overstep of the state's authority. Marriage is a human construction and a legal one.
The definition of marriage is not a matter of empirical observation, like the colour of the sky. It's a legal artifice, which is really just about legal rights/privileges/responsibilities arising from a contractual agreement between two people called "spouses." Defining the spouses as two people of opposite sex is superfluous, because there is no reason to believe that sex affects one's ability to enter into a legal contract with someone else.
I don't care how you characterize any religious people in the US, have the backbone to oppose them in elected office, or try and change their views, or get out of constitutionally legal actions.
Being that I'm not an American, I'm neither bound by your constitution nor able to run for political office, so that point is moot. The point is that something being "constitutionally legal" doesn't make it good, as history amply establishes.
I hear the double standard: your religious opponents are not allowed to keep traditional definition of marriage, are forced to support contraception or abortion that violates their religious views, and yet this same constitution should forbid this kind of speech.
Holy strawman, batman. First off: I'm a practicing Catholic. I support same-sex marriage and contraceptives, and I oppose abortion, generally speaking. Second, there is no "traditional definition of marriage" because marriage has varied across cultures, religions, and nations since its inception. If anything, marriage was "traditionally" about women being married off as property rather than any particular consensual relationship or sexual complementarity. I don't understand how the state permitting gay people to make a particular kind of contract between each other invalidates what marriage is in the context of the law. Nor do I understand how this would force people to lose their traditional definition of marriage, or whatever. That the state recognizes something does not imply that you are forced to consider same-sex couples bound in legal matrimony to be "married." For all I care, you can consider interracial marriages invalid, if you like. The state taking a non-ideological position doesn't restrict your ability to do that.
I don't see anyone at the federal level forcing every public school to open with the pledge. The Supreme Court has already ruled on forcing an individual to recite it. The allegations of fascist undertones or some nefarious indoctrination behind it is hogwash.
I think fascism wrt the Pledge is hyperbolic. But you can't deny that, while there are no laws forcing schools to open with it, a long customary practice of doing so is absolutely prevalent, and absolutely does heavily discourage children from not saying it.
This government was instituted with the idea that the people established it. It was not some enlightened monarch or tea-party evangelical-right bashing citizen that saw the government, it was the people's assent.
Umm. Is your position that, in any group X, if the majority of people in group X endorse position Y, then position Y should be adopted?
If you're a child in the United States, protected by its armed forces and the laws, it is not indoctrination to verbalize allegiance to its founding doctrines.
Literally zero children are capable of understanding what a pledge of allegiance is for the same reason that literally zero children are permitted to sign legal contracts: they can't give legal consent.
Sure, some kids won't understand yet that there were ideas that a monarch could do as he wished with religion and state. They'll learn that in time, at least I hope so. Until then, and until some group of concerned citizens persuades a Congressional majority to de-institute it, it's entirely within a school or school district's prerogative to lead their students in a voluntary pledge. I think the pressing matters for the improvement of the education system do not include the pledge of allegiance.
I agree that there's nothing pressing about the Pledge, but appealing to worse problems is a logical fallacy since such reasoning presumes that we can only do one of two good things, when in fact we can easily do both.
I didn't expect to be challenged on the role of the armed forces. Rewind 20 years and there were crackpot dictators the world over vowing to toast the country or at least a few thousand in a city. I picture your type sitting beside troops about to be shipped overseas shouting your rhetoric.
I can't imagine I'd bother. While I lament needless loss of life, someone who volunteers for military action is within their rights to do what they will with their body. I may not agree with it, and I may try to convince them of my perspective on their actions (as I'm sure they'd do to me) but I don't see any particular reason to villify them, as soldiers are mostly ordinary people doing what they think is best. The real blame for lost lives lies with those who create wars, not those who fight them. I'm not sure what "crackpot dictators" you're referring to, but for every one you supposedly defeated, I can probably point to one you installed.
I'd wager that not a single soldier active in the last twenty-five years (low ball estimate) has actually died protecting the US from any tangible threat. Why? Because there haven't been any threats.
Don't worry kids, you don't have to honor some nation with an incredible track record of protecting the mainland. The troops aren't needed! If you think pledging your allegiance to a country isn't an example of giving it due honor, then I probably can't persuade you of much here given how you view things.
Protecting the mainland from whom? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_US_territory
Doesn't look like there has been much outside of WWII, frankly. Even then, Pearl Harbor wasn't really an invasion or the mainland, and America paid Japan back in a convincing (and arguably excessive) fashion.
I talk about allowing some self governance, you cry for the soon return of slavery. Oh well. I guess that's what advocates of political correctness always flee to. Let one guy speak up in a public place about his religion, let anyone speak as to how the country was founded, and lynchings will soon follow.
I don't think slavery is likely to return, actually. My point is that your line of argumentation would permit it to return, hypothetically, whereas mine wouldn't. The argument I employed was a reductio ad absurdum, which is a pretty common rhetorical device; I'd expect you to notice that, since you're an intelligent person.
It is still your belief in knowing better than the religious right (or whatever group you seek to marginalize) and having the right to controvert that. I happen to think the constitution, should government return to its precepts, is not outdated and it stands in high contrast to those of other countries that assert this and that positive liberty.
I don't want the right to controvert anything, personally. I don't care who proposes a given law, or votes for it; if the law is a matter of discrimination, or if the law is the legislation of a morality not explicitly outlined by the state (e.g. making adultery illegal would be stupid because it would be legislating a particular brand of morality that isn't attested to by anything even remotely associated with American political philosophy) or if the law is oppressive to some minority for no other reason than the personal beliefs of some group of people.
For now, fight for your views in the government (and in the activist courts), but do not presume an enlightened state over the people that have stopped the removal of "under God" or other religious words in public contexts.
I think it's safe to say that I'm enlightened in the particular case of, say, wanting gays to be allowed to marry, or in the case of wanting to remove "under God" on the grounds that having it achieves nothing and plausibly discredits the Pledge. Being enlightened with respect to one issue or another isn't the same as claiming to be a superior being or enlightened in general. There are many things of which I am ignorant, like taxation policies. I have an opinion on those things, but I do not seek to persuade people if it because I lack the knowledge to assess arguments regarding such things. On the other hand, I am absolutely sure that, whether or not God thinks that homosexual intercourse is wrong (and I'd be very surprised if God did) there is, at present, no logical reason whatsoever for same-sex marriage to be illegal.
The courts upheld slavery and also struck down decisions limiting civil rights. Their duty going forward is to protect infringement of laws upon freedoms guaranteed in the constitution.
Sit tight? Is that the line you'd offer to American slaves or victims of Jim Crow laws? The notion that America will get there someday isn't something I dispute. I just wish America would cut through some of the red tape in the interest of getting there a lot sooner, as people really do suffer from injustice in the meantime.
If criticizing your religious opponents still does not let your views ascend to the majority, then sit tight and don't moan so much. I mean protest, but every intellectual should remember the vicious rhetoric he levels against the believing folk when he claims the high ground.
I am one of the "believing folk." The difference is that I do not attempt to legislate moral positions that are justified only by an appeal to religion, and nor do I argue that my own perceptions of things will be exterminated by the state's acknowledgment that people who disagree with those perceptions are not necessarily wrong.
|
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy.
|
Superfan, you are the walking definition of arrogant, overbearing patriotism, and the fact that you can't see the difference between teaching kids about the moral salience of sharing vs. selfishness and indoctrinating them to revere/worship the American flag and American ideals is...well...actually not that surprising, knowing you on these boards...
That said, you have a point; calling the U.S. pledge fascist is, at best, disingenuous, and, at worse, ignorant and dick-ish. It's quite nationalistic, but it's not even remotely fascist. Take the Hitler oath, for example. Now that's some fascist stuff.
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
"Unconditional obedience"? "Supreme commander"? The U.S. pledge pledges you to our flag and our country. No pledge to our government (and definitely no unconditional pledges). You can interpret that in any way, from being loyal and obedient to the federal government to actively rebelling against our government because you are fighting for the people, which is what America really is about, as opposed to the government.
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy.
There are countless Catholics that actually fight for the causes that the Catholic church espouses (equality, treating everyone fairly, fighting for the poor and oppressed) as opposed to blindly following one of the most evil and corrupt institutions in the history of humanity.
|
On July 20 2013 00:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Superfan, you are the walking definition of arrogant, overbearing patriotism, and the fact that you can't see the difference between teaching kids about the moral salience of sharing vs. selfishness and indoctrinating them to revere/worship the American flag and American ideals is...well...actually not that surprising, knowing you on these boards...
Nowhere in the pledge is it implied that one should worship the country or flag or the ideals for which the flag stands. The position you've put in my mouth comes from within yourself, not me.
Show nested quote +
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy.
There are countless Catholics that actually fight for the causes that the Catholic church espouses (equality, treating everyone fairly, fighting for the poor and oppressed) as opposed to blindly following one of the most evil and corrupt institutions in the history of humanity.
If they oppose/deny the authority of the Church than they are guilty of heresy, and quite possibly cannot even be called Catholics in any true sense.
|
On July 20 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy.
No individual has a personal relationship with God, those who think otherwise are deluded. Maybe thats harsh, perhaps its more like the relationship between a child and a dead parent.
Besides, most rational people relize that homosexual marriage would most likely be the least of Gods concerns and not a sin. So in answer to your question: the things in the bible were written by men from a certain period of history and a specific society, we no longer need to use their guildlines to live our lives, shellfish, pig meat, gay sex dont make us sick like we believed in the past and we have mostly moved on. These rules existed for a reason, mostly to help ensure the survival of various tribes and people, but are now antiquated and no longer necessary.
In closing, God, if it does exist, does not give a fuck about you, me, or all the starving babies in africa, that shits on us to take care of.
|
On July 20 2013 00:57 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy. No individual has a personal relationship with God, those who think otherwise are deluded. Maybe thats harsh, perhaps its more like the relationship between a child and a dead parent. Besides, most rational people relize that homosexual marriage would most likely be the least of Gods concerns and not a sin. So in answer to your question: the things in the bible were written by men from a certain period of history and a specific society, we no longer need to use their guildlines to live our lives, shellfish, pig meat, gay sex dont make us sick like we believed in the past and we have mostly moved on. These rules existed for a reason, mostly to help ensure the survival of various tribes and people, but are now antiquated and no longer necessary. In closing, God, if it does exist, does not give a fuck about you, me, or all the starving babies in africa, that shits on us to take care of.
I wasn't making religious arguments for God's existence, nor was I attempting to justify whatever beliefs the Church may or may not hold. I was simply making the observation that if one claims to be a Catholic, and one holds beliefs contrary to the declarations of the Church, than one is toeing the line of heresy. And if one denies the authority of the Church that one is coming very close to denying their own Catholicism.
Whether or not God approves of homosexual marriage or not is up for debate, I suppose. I would side with the Church on this one, but that's because I am Catholic and I recognize their authority to interpret the Scripture. I'm not particularly interested in a debate about the merits of my religion, nor do I think such a debate is appropriate here. Perhaps it is difficult for people to separate the two arguments (what is Catholic vs. Does God exist) so I'll probably leave it at that. I wouldn't want to lead people off-topic because they can't understand the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
