Posted on 06/16/2004 3:34:01 AM PDT by Huber
Edited on 06/16/2004 3:39:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
If you have a good reason why a certain part of the pledge should stay as it is or why it should be amended then the "argument" that one doesn't have to say it is completely irrelevant and you don't even need it. However, if that is the only argument you have, then your position is extremely weak if you want to oppose the addition of a phrase that praises the supremacy of the white race for instance. The majority is white, the Founding Fathers were caucasians as well as all presidents. You are an American Indian and thus member of a minority so if you don't agree that the white race is superior you may just stay silent while that passage is recited. After all, it's America ;)
No. The revolution was over taxation without representation. If you derive the benefits of citizenship, you owe allegience to your Government. If you are NOT loyal, your citizenship can and should be stripped and your "rights" should be stripped, much like those of a felon because you did not live up to the responsibility of them. The fact that the treason and sedition statutes are not enforced today does not nullify them.
(I'm surprised to hear such seditious talk from you Mama Texan!)
Yes, that's certainly true but those who did that weren't True Scotsmen ;-)
Of course you have very good manners referring to those who do believe in the supernatural as "fools" and "those that aren't 'smarter' then himself.
I think it is those snide comments that make athiests loathed by the general public. That kind of snobbery is why I'll never vote for an athiest because it frequently reminds me of why athiesm has such a murderous legacy when its adherents think of the religious humanity around them as "fools" and "not so smart as himself".
I'm an atheist. I'm also a conservative. I don't object to "under God" in the Pledge because I don't think it 'establishes' a religion. I don't object to Christmas displays in public parks because for the most part Christmas has become a secular as much as a religious holiday. I don't object to school vouchers because I think parents should have a right to send their kids to whomever they think can give them the best education. I don't object to a cross in the Los Angeles County seal becuase it is historical in context.
What I do object to is people who say I can't be a moral person because I don't believe there is a higher being than man.
> Yet Peter specifically says in his epistle that they did not take anything from other religions or stories.
From: http://www.thisischurch.com/sermon/ethics.htm
Christianity and Greek Philosophy This meant that the early Christian thinkers, the church fathers (Patriachs—Patristics), were Gentile Greeks and Romans. What influenced their thinking, and ours subsequently, was the world of Greek Philosophy. It is worth considering what this was, because it has had far reaching consequences for our Christian beliefs.
Pythagoras (c530BC), was more than just the man who speculated about the hypotenuse, he was a mystic. His maths was about more than just adding up, it was a way to contemplate the divine, maths was religion.
Plato, came along a hundred years and adhered to the Pythagorean line in Greek thinking and was also a mystic. His ‘Doctrine of Forms’ suggests that what is real comes to us from above. The only true tree or mountain or person is the one in the mind of God. The things which we see are only imperfect representations of the real forms, like shadows on the wall of a cave. For Pythagoras and Plato goodness is something above away from this imperfect material world. People left to their own devices, no matter how conscientious, were bound to get it wrong. Ethical standards, therefore, were best decided by the gods, and ethics became a matter of reflecting on the will of the gods.
Plato developed a sophisticated political and social philosophy which matched these ideas. By this, it was ensured that, in the perfect society, the ruling class would communicate to the people any ethical messages from the gods. The pattern for a theocratic (God-determined) and autocratic (class-determined) ethical system was in place.
It is understandable that Rome and the church were both attracted to Platonism. It justified the division of classes, in terms of both wealth and power. Platonism became the basis for much of Christian theology through 1,000 years of Christian history. A philosophy, such as Platonism, which suggests that everything in this world is faulty by nature, including human perception, is the enemy of science and human reason.
...
Augustine. Platonism can be seen clearly in the Christian theology of St. Augustine (c. 400). His ‘City Of God’ theology characterized the Church as a pilgrim in the world. All human institutions were corrupt and faulty, because they had no mystical union with God. Only the Church could provide a haven wherein one could be saved. The price of salvation, of course, was utter subservience to the system. In this case, Christian ethics is a matter of conforming one’s conscience to the mind of the Church. The is expressed in the phrase Roma locuta est, causa finita est (Rome has spoken, the matter is closed).
Which, I believe tied into the lack of authority to tax as well.
If you derive the benefits of citizenship, you owe allegience to your Government
What if the 'benefits' (conveniently defined by government) are foisted upon you whether you want them or not? If you receive something unasked for, isn't it considered a gift?
If you are NOT loyal, your citizenship can and should be stripped and your "rights" should be stripped
Since government didn't give me my rights, they have no authority to take them unless I've violated one of Commandments 6 - 10.
(I'm surprised to hear such seditious talk from you Mama Texan!)
Seditious??? Me?? Hardly.
I'm just pointing out if they should examine the pledge, ALL the words should be scrutinized, not just the ones atheists find 'offensive'.
Damn straight.
Now, if you want a discussion....I reject the idea of school vouchers, because I am a conservative. That always gets interesting.
that is a singularly christian definition, though.
There was a very interesting debate on this topic carried out between M.E. Bradford and Harry Jaffa in the pages of Modern Age that might interest you:
Jaffa, "Equality as a Conservative Principle", Loyala of Los Angeles Law Review, VIII (June 1975)
Bradford. "The Heresy of Equality: Bradford Replies to Jaffa", Modern Age, Volume 20, No. 1, Winter 1976
Jaffa, "Equality, Justice, and the American Revolution: In Reply to Bradford's "The Heresy of Equality"", Modern Age,
The two Modern Age essays are available in "Modern Age - The First Twenty-Five Years", www.libertyfund.org
Their debate centers around Lincoln's interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and the proposition that "all men are created equal".
The Declaration philosophy - Part I: The origins of rights
Address:http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0603/0603decphil1.htm
The Declaration philosophy - Part I: The origins of rights
By Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
Over the last several years, a disturbing trend has developed in both academia and the media when both bodies discuss Constitutional powers, boundaries, and the related subject of human rights. Far too often, voices from these establishments refer to
"Rights" as "Constitutional Amendments," inferring that these Rights are conveyed upon individuals in the Constitution. A prime example of this is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is most often referred to as an individual's "Second Amendment Rights."
This trend is both dangerous and misleading.
To recognize the true origin of Rights, we must look to the key historical document that served as a predecessor to our Constitution ? the Declaration of Independence.
Please note, the subject of inherent human rights was discussed in other regions of the world, throughout the centuries, by other revolutionary philosophers; but for the purposes of this doctrine and its application to the Constitution it later spawned, we shall address the ideologies embraced by the Declaration of Independence.
In particular:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed?"
All men (i.e., people) are created equal. They may be born into different societies, social strata, familial conditions, with limitations or natural predilections, but their very inclusion in the human race demands recognition of their Rights. Every human being has an inherent right to live, be free of unnecessary constraints, and to pursue their happiness in a just and decent manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others.
History has long shown that oppressed people can and will eventually break the physical, social, economic, or religious chains that bind them. They may do so individually or collectively, with the strength of outside assistance or of their own volition. They may do so passively and peacefully, or violently and suddenly. Whatever their course, they are driven by the same inherent urge that defines the very strength of humanity its desire to be free.
Those who believe that Rights are not unalienable, are not a necessary component of each individual human being, point to the egregious trespasses of history as proof that rights were not "self-evident." They suggest that since these societies failed to recognize the rights of others (most notably epitomized in the evils of slavery throughout the centuries), that Rights must be constructs of the State, conveyed by the State.
On the contrary, one can judge the justness of a Society or State by how vehemently it protects the Rights of its citizens, encourages the free exercise thereof, and limits its own powers in deference to the liberty of the individual. States can neither convey nor deny us our Rights. They can only allow or forcefully suppress the exercise of them. Our Rights remain a constant and integral component of our humanity.
If one acknowledges that Rights are unalienable, a necessary components of each human being, then they also acknowledge a duty to protect and defend not just their rights but the rights of anyone who finds themselves living in an oppressed society. The variegations of liberty and our ability to pursue happiness depend greatly upon fostering freedom in every society within our sphere of interaction. If we do not, we may one day be faced with the forceful suppression of our Rights by an unjust government or enemy.
If one believes that Rights are simply a construct of State, conveyed by the State, then one has denied themselves any justification for righting the wrongs against others. No matter how deplorably a State may treat its people, we have no obligation or rationale to intervene, because the State has authorized the level of freedom it allows its people and chooses who it will or will not grant "rights" to. Any manner of evil or brutality would be permissible, since this philosophy presumes that the power rests in the State and its hierarchy, not in the individual citizen.
Whether expressly stated or not, each time someone refers to our Rights as an Amendment, they are reinforcing the notion that Rights are conveyed to us by the Constitution and the State.
A dangerous notion, indeed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.