Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: s01 on November 10, 2006, 11:36:51 am

Title: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: s01 on November 10, 2006, 11:36:51 am
Has any one seen this?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Thoughts?

Personally, I await for the erosion of the Declaration of Independence next. Afterall - it mentions 'God' and 'Creator' too....how offensive!
I'm thinking this borders on liberals not liking being labeled as liberals (even if they truley are). Crazy silly and a sad loss of heritage in many respects...


Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Rocketman on November 10, 2006, 11:45:18 am
Philosophically, the Pledge of Allegiance is a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration asserts that individuals are sovereign, and legitimate government only exists by the people's consent.  The Pledge conditions children to consent unquestioningly to an indivisible union that exists no matter what.

I say screw the pledge.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: KBCraig on November 10, 2006, 12:39:31 pm
Thoughts?

I had just read it earlier. My first thought: "how childish!"

I have no problem with refusing to say the pledge. But if that's how they feel, they should just not say the pledge. Quietly drop it from the program. But, this is college, where they love to make big noise about nothing of consequence.

Kevin
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Ear on November 10, 2006, 01:01:02 pm
I spent my entire childhood refusing to say the Pledge in school, and I don't think that was a mistake.  My allegiance is to the Constitution, not to a piece of cloth.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1950s, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: s01 on November 10, 2006, 01:27:47 pm
The original was ~1892 by Francis Bellamy..is had at least two changes since then....
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Rocketman on November 10, 2006, 01:29:26 pm
I spent my entire childhood refusing to say the Pledge in school, and I don't think that was a mistake. My allegiance is to the Constitution, not to a piece of cloth.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1950s, wasn't it?

The pledge was written in the 1890's by Francis Bellamy, a socialist world government type.  "Under God" was added in 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance

"Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue."

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg/250px-1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg)

Thoughts?

I had just read it earlier. My first thought: "how childish!"

I have no problem with refusing to say the pledge. But if that's how they feel, they should just not say the pledge. Quietly drop it from the program. But, this is college, where they love to make big noise about nothing of consequence.

Kevin

With all due respect, Kevin, I think what we need most on the national level is an honest discussion of the "social contract" between U.S. citizens and the U.S. government.  If the U.S. is ever to again be defined by the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, I think we have to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is decidedly un-American.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Spencer on November 10, 2006, 09:48:36 pm
The "under God" portion of the Pledge was added in 1954 by Congress (signed into law by Ike).
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Forastero on November 11, 2006, 01:19:32 am
Has any one seen this?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Thoughts?

Personally, I await for the erosion of the Declaration of Independence next. Afterall - it mentions 'God' and 'Creator' too....how offensive!
I'm thinking this borders on liberals not liking being labeled as liberals (even if they truley are). Crazy silly and a sad loss of heritage in many respects...




Hey, I'll say it right here and now: I am a liberal and I am proud to admit it. In terms of a ban on the pledge of allegience, no, let the people who want to say it say it, and let those that dont want to, not. I just wish more people would get the "and liberty and justice for all." part.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Ward Griffiths on November 12, 2006, 08:55:16 pm
[Hey, I'll say it right here and now: I am a liberal and I am proud to admit it. In terms of a ban on the pledge of allegience, no, let the people who want to say it say it, and let those that dont want to, not. I just wish more people would get the "and liberty and justice for all." part.
Most just go for the "one nation, indivisible, under G-D" part.  A relic of the war thirty years before the statist socialist Bellamy wrote it and an artifact of the Red Scare half a century after.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Rocketman on November 12, 2006, 09:36:06 pm
I pledge allegiance... to the republic... with liberty and justice for all.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: lloydbob1 on November 12, 2006, 09:48:46 pm
The "under God" portion of the Pledge was added in 1954 by Congress (signed into law by Ike).

I remember returning to school that year and being confused by the PLA as if I had forgotten something. They never explained anyhing to kids in those days.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: MyFreeStateName on December 10, 2006, 03:12:34 am
The "under God" portion of the Pledge was added in 1954 by Congress (signed into law by Ike).

I remember returning to school that year and being confused by the PLA as if I had forgotten something. They never explained anyhing to kids in those days.

They still don't.
I grew up really disliking this country (from what I was taught) and feeling very sorry for the "indians" and feeling ashamed of being an American. After reading in college what the founders actually thought and wrote, I feel much more kinship with them. Pity....I still have so much catching up to do...I still feel guilty about the "indians".
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: mattahern on December 31, 2006, 04:27:08 pm
The "under God" portion of the Pledge was added in 1954 by Congress (signed into law by Ike).

I remember returning to school that year and being confused by the PLA as if I had forgotten something. They never explained anyhing to kids in those days.

They still don't.
I grew up really disliking this country (from what I was taught) and feeling very sorry for the "indians" and feeling ashamed of being an American. After reading in college what the founders actually thought and wrote, I feel much more kinship with them. Pity....I still have so much catching up to do...I still feel guilty about the "indians".

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." - DOI

The POA is not without precedent and that with an appeal to divine Providence. The difference is evident in both instances. The pledge made between these men was between themselves and consequently between every citizen since the colonial representatives were acting in a representative manner. The POA is to the state and that is a slight of hand. The appeal to divine Providence in the DOI is as a witness. In the POA it establishes a psuedo-theocracy.

Now, you may regard me as hostile to Christianity which many make that leap in deduction. I am a Christian of the Reformed faith - generally regarded as more hardliner than most other denominations. But the truth be told, I don't care for the mingling of human government with divine government. I have faith that God's government is supreme and capable of accomplishing His ends without the endorsement or support of human government. He is after all,... omnipotent.

Regarding the Judge Roy Moore fiasco in Alabama I have some thoughts on this which may not have even been considered by my Christian brethren. Why all the brouhaha over the Ten Commandments? As Christians why would we want to emphasis the Law over Grace? If anything were to be memorialized at a courthouse I would think we would prefer John 8:36, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

The Gospel does not need the endorsement of men - that is faith in the power of God.

The POA is a useless exercise which is contrary to the liberty spoken of in the DOI and the Constitution.

As far as being guilty about the Indians I would recommend that you free yourself from that guilt. You obviously regard those actions as wrong and have no intent of repeating them - the guilt is not yours. You may enjoy reading David Yeagley at Bad Eagle - http://www.badeagle.com/. Treat the Indians with the same liberty-mindedness as you yourself want to receive from them.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: lordmetroid on December 31, 2006, 08:11:18 pm
The current oath of citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States%29): I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Is not acceptable to me because by the words of: ...that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies... feels like I am a subject under the state rather than the other way around. I do not intend to fight for the state. If I am going to fight it will be to keep my sovereignity. The constitution is a contract that I have the citizen have with the state regarding what the state can do to help me defend my sovereignty. Not the other way around!
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; Same thing again, the state is suppose to be my subject not the other way around. And then just to kick me in my face a last time to make sure who is the subject to who and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. It is despeciable this oath is a loss of freedom to the state rather than "welcome, you are now a freemen, sovereign and king of your property.

The so help me God. ... Alright, who brought God into the picture to those people that do not have a god? I don't want to say this oath when I become a citizen. I have no problem of swearing an oath but to whom would I do that too? I am suppose to become a sovereign person. Swear an oath to myself?
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: error on December 31, 2006, 09:13:29 pm
I wouldn't take that oath.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: outlaw4freedom on January 02, 2007, 08:17:31 pm
I won't ban you're right to say the pledge,

if you don't ban my right not to say it.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: tom ploszaj on October 18, 2007, 08:57:14 pm
I have used Barry Gold's pledge in place of the one to a flag.

Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of
America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all.
-- Barry Gold
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: yoplait on October 18, 2007, 10:53:27 pm
I have used Barry Gold's pledge in place of the one to a flag.

Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of
America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all.
-- Barry Gold


What if you someday think this gov't has become to tyrannical and try to overthrow it (and with it, the Constitution?)
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 19, 2007, 12:13:37 am
I wouldnt' take that pledge though I'd put changing it at the bottom of a very long list.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: LibertyforLife on October 19, 2007, 10:15:49 am
Interesting point that yoplait makes. I for one, owe an allegiance to no one whom I have not entered into contract with.

I've heard Marc Stevens from Adventures in Legal Land quote the following. That at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution some 3 million people were in the colonies. That of those 3 million only some 15,000 were eligible to vote. Of those only some 7000-9000 actually voted, and of those only 51 percent actually voted in favor.

I also would like to draw your attention to the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the US Constitution. The US Constitution required only 3/4ths of the States to ratify it, the Articles of Confederation required all of the States to repeal it. The US Constitution could never be ratified because the Articles of Confederation were never repealed by the legislatures of the various States united. Further on top of that those who did sign the US Constitution were never authorized by the legislatures  of the various States united to sign said Constitution.

To quote Weird Al Yankovic, 'everything you know is wrong'. Its a shocker to the system to be sure. I'm shocked to what I have heard. I've lost all the reverence for the Constitution and the founding fathers, which actually only lends more power to my want of a fully voluntary society.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: djlong on July 01, 2008, 07:51:40 pm
Just to clarify something about the Articles of Confederation.

Article XIII says that the articles are pepetual - "unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

That was the process of the ratification of the Constitution.  Once the Constitution was ratified by *all* 13 states, it superseded the Articles.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 02, 2008, 01:43:36 am
Just to clarify something about the Articles of Confederation.

Article XIII says that the articles are pepetual - "unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

That was the process of the ratification of the Constitution.  Once the Constitution was ratified by *all* 13 states, it superseded the Articles.

The Articles weren’t replaced, though—in the 1860s the fedgov was pointing to the “perpetual union” part of the Articles as justification for forcing the seceding States back into the Union. It also means that the fedgov was operating illegally from the time period when nine States had ratified the Constitution (the time at which they claimed it went into force) until all thirteen did.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: Jitgos on July 02, 2008, 07:23:49 am
I spent my entire childhood refusing to say the Pledge in school, and I don't think that was a mistake.  My allegiance is to the Constitution, not to a piece of cloth.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1950s, wasn't it?

So your allegiance is to a piece of paper instead of a piece of cloth? I used to be in the same boat, but now realize that's ridiculous too. The Constitution has failed miserably.
Title: Re: Pledge of allegience ban?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 02, 2008, 07:52:55 am
The US Constitution is a treaty signifying an Union of social entities... only the BoR deals with the individual.
The US Flag is a symbol of that Union... with the Pledge just reinforcing the Union contract.

Think about the words... 'With liberty and justice for all.' That is an ideal, not reality.

Jeremy, point well taken... but even then the reaffirmation of it during the secession from the Union of southern States would signify that it must legally still be active beyond the ratification of the US Constitution. American jurisprudence seems to hold ideals with little merit.