Pledge of Allegiance

wroughtn_harv · Jun 28, 2002

Morning Chuck,

One of the things about the human animal that never ceases to amaze me is our feeling that the rules don't apply to us.

I'm as guilty as anyone btw. I buy the lottery tickets even though I know the odds are so big against me but.........

All we have to do is look around at our world and everywhere we see religion in charge there are problems. But everyone wants to point out that it's that religion that's the problem. They don't want to see that all we have to do is fill in the blanks, religion of choice, and the same problems arise.

The rhetoric of the Islamic fundamentalists is not different from the Christian fundamentalists. Except for one god's name is changed for another. They both preach that everyone should be forced to live by the rules of their religion and all will be well.

We know that dog can hunt. You just have to find a prey that can't get away from a dog without legs or teeth.

Another thing that really bothers me about these conversations is we keep forgetting things change. And the rules we put into place to favor our position now will be in place when our position is out. Do we really want to have that to happen?

When I hear the quotes about our forefathers and their infinate wisdom of god in our government two incidents come to mind. The first of course is the letter of seccession by the State of Texas when they secceded from the Union. It will send chills down your spine, guaroanteed.

The next is the lynching of Joseph Smith by the righeous. As you know he was the father of the Mormon religion. They were persecuted and ran out of town after town until they could finally find a wilderness to call their own.

The love it or leave it crowd forget we don't live in a true democracy. We live in a republic. That means the rights of the minority are protected even though it might not be the will of the majority. What makes it work is rule of law.

wroughtn_harv · Jun 28, 2002

Morning Randy,

Your comment about traffic really hit home.

Awhile back I'd left downtown Fort Worth for Wylie about four p.m. About five p.m. in Carrolton I was number three in a four car pile up. About six I was in Wylie just a crawling along about up to here with it all. Then I saw a lady I knew wanting to get out into traffic. I of course let her in with a big friendly wave.

But I hadn't been doing that all day with everyone else. It had been wait your turn cause I'm here first for them.

So now when it's up to here in traffic I try to see a friend's face in that car wanting over into my lane or wanting to get into traffic. It isn't easy. But I am trying.

I'm glad you like the work. I figure we were given work and time. It's a crime to use one and not the other.

Charlie_Iliff · Jun 28, 2002

Wroughtn - you noted:
Of course the most interesting thing about this whole discussion is how some are stopped and choking over "under god" and not being able to go on to "with liberty and justice for all." 
And a bit of irony that the teeth gnashing is about a 1954 addition to the original, which had the word "equality" deleted because it was written for a convention of school superintendants who were quite definitely not in favor of equality in the school systems of the day. Similarly, "In God We Trust" as a national motto was a product of the same push in the mid 1950's, although it was put on coins beginning in the Civil War. It's not about the Founding Fathers, and not really about religion or faith, either. It's about the politics of the day. I'm sure we all feel better now that our leaders in DC have uniformly and loudly concluded that there are more votes available in the fall elections for those "Under God" than for those merely in favor of equality, liberty and justice.

RanchMan · Jun 28, 2002

Responding in this thread is really a no-win situation, and quite frankly I'm a bit surprised the thread still exists based on the "political & religious discussion" policy, but I'm compelled to throw out my opinion on the subject (as so many others as have been.) Somehow I’m sure I will offend someone, but at least I’ve tried to not be a “meanie” by responding to any particular individual....

Once you boil everything down, it is about how some people are completely and selfishly focused on themselves - what I call the "Me, Myself, & I" factor. Basically meaning if something makes them feel bad, left out, or uncomfortable, it must be inherently "wrong.” It is even "more wrong" if the issue/policy in question has been around for a long time.

Conversely if the activity/issue/wording makes them feel "good", it has to be "right & good." It doesn't matter what the subject is - Religion, Politics, Ethics, Behavior, etc. "Political Correctness" was developed to address the "harsh world" by wrapping everything up in a nice euphemistic bow so that nobody was offended and that the minority (of whatever group) could feel “good” about themselves again - at the expense of the majority.

What has seemed to happen is that a minority of these selfish people (who I refer to as "Do Gooders") take it upon themselves to start a crusade (no religious context intended) to "Change the System" so that they can feel better about themselves and impose their minority views on the majority.

Does that mean that nothing should change and we should stay "in the Dark Ages" or that the minority shouldn’t be protected - certainly not! - never said that. Extreme examples of "what if" people seem to give a lot of the time are misguided at best, red herrings at worst.

Often the result of these "Do Gooders" is that our rights as Americans are slowly whittled away, piece by piece, for all of us. The fact of life is regardless of who you are or what you believe on any subject, you will feel uncomfortable or even offended at times during your life. But there's a BIG difference between making you "feel bad" and doing real physical/emotional harm to an individual.

Have I felt "bad", "left out", "alienated", and downright mad at times myself? YOU BET! - but the Constitution doesn't guarantee me the right to always feel good - I don't believe that is what "...Pursuit of Happiness" means. What have I done in the past? Well, if it was a true issue of prosecution, sure, I’ll speak up. But let’s get real here folks, those times are few and far between. Most of the time what I do is just to “suck it up” and "deal with it."

If you don't believe in God - fine, that's your choice. Don't want to say the Pledge - fine, don't say it. The State doesn't force individuals to participate - and I believe that was the true spirit (if not the verbatim words) of the Constitution & Bill of Rights.

But don’t delude yourself. What’s going on in California now with the pledge is not about some “highly philosophical and well meaning individual fighting for the ‘true’ meaning of the Constitution.” It’s about a “Do Gooder” individual who is simply a troublemaker, wanting his 15 minutes of fame, and trying to “Stick it to the Man.” If you believe otherwise, well - in the euphemistic PC spirit of today - you’re looking through rose colored glasses..../w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

RanchMan · Jun 28, 2002

By the way, after I wrote the above response, I looked on the net for some more info on this person who filed the suit.

For anyone who doubt's my last paragraph where I say that the person who brought the suit is simply a troublemaker looking for his 15 minutes of fame, etc., here's a quote from him.

Mr. Michael Newdow: "...as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

This quote can be found at the bottom of the CNN's article on their web site. Here's the link...

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/index.html>http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/index.html</A>

(You'll notice where he wants "In God We Trust" removed from money even if it costs the taxpayers.)

Additionally, here is an article from a newspaper in Sacramento, (Mr. Newdow's home town).

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3353068p-4379244c.html>http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3353068p-4379244c.html</A>

Apparently this fellow has sued President Bush because of his inauguration speech and want's Mr. Bush to refrain from any references to Christianity in the future.

I especially like where the article says that the President's speech made him (Mr. Newdow) feel like an "outsider" - (now where did I see someone commenting about “Do Gooder Feelings”??? /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif)

Chuck52 · Jun 28, 2002

Ranchman,

I really don't give a FFAARD about the guy who filed the suit. I would not have done it myself...it's really not that significant to me. On the other hand, when invited to respond, via this forum, I had no problem confirming that there are indeed others who do not feel that religious references have a place in government.

Chuck

MossRoad · Jun 28, 2002

OK, you've got to private e-mail me as to what a FFAARD is. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

RanchMan · Jun 28, 2002

FFAARD is an acronym I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll assume it is a less than a polite term. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) I'm sorry you didn't find my links to news articles on the individual, his comments, and his reasoning behind his actions helpful or informative. (I had thought they were pertinent to the subject of this thread, hence their inclusion.)

You say you "On the other hand, when invited to respond, via this forum, I had no problem confirming that there are indeed others who do not feel that religious references have a place in government."

Okay..?? /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

Please help me understand what you meant.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand your point. The implication (and correct me if I have misinterpreted your meaning) is that I don't acknowledge that there exists a difference of opinion of this subject and/or that "we" should all believe the same thing.

I don't believe I ever said that everyone should believe one way or the other. Actually, I said quite the opposite when I spoke of having to "suck it up and deal with it" myself when I was offended or such. I think that inherently illustrates my acknowledgment that there are differences in opinions/beliefs, be it those on this board or the population of the world as a whole - e.g. everyone will never agree on everything, ever, regardless of subject matter. I'm not sure how my first message has been construed to imply otherwise.

I also said that it is a minority few who feel compelled, regardless of beliefs, to take action and change the status quo in order to make themselves feel "better" and for the fame/fortune associated with such a maneuver. The problem I have is that it seems EVERYBODY today is a "victim" for one reason or another. This particular case dealt with atheistic views - but that wasn't my point - my point was that it seems everyone today has to blame someone for something and then start some stink about it in the courts. My argument is a philosophical one, not a religious one.

Oh, I'm also curious about "...when invited to respond..." part of your statement. Could you explain what you meant by that, or am I just reading too much in to your response?

genelp · Jun 28, 2002

I found your post on this to be interesting, so I wanted to get your opinion on what struck me when I heard about this issue on the news. Supposedly the person that originally took this issue to court is an athiest (did I spell that right?). However I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong, that a true athiest wouldn't really care if the rest of us believe in God. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find it interesting that someone would go to so much trouble to attack something they don't even believe exists. Just curious as to what your take is on this angle?

Gene