Talk:Pledge of Allegiance
|
|
Do we really want to include links like this that will disappear in a few days? This could go into Current Events, but shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. -- Zoe
In the article:
- when atheism was often associated with the United State's arch-rival the Soviet Union.
Atheism was not "associated with" the USSR: it was the official state ideology.
- That's not the point -- in the US, atheism was, has been, and is associated with many other things besides the (former) USSR. Atheism existed, even in the US, before the Russian Revolution. slrubenstein
- Are you trying to say that being in the middle of a nuclear cold war against "godless Communists" had no influence on the decision to add "under God" to the pledge? --Brion VIBBER
- nope. The article should suggest that including the words was a reaction to the Cold War. But it should not suggest that only the USSR or communists are atheists, that's all. It isn't a substantive issue, just one of wording. slrubenstein
- That's why I wrote "associated with", not "was only practiced by". I've rewritten that sentence anyway; if you don't like the new version, please rewrite it to your heart's content. --Brion VIBBER
Can someone please check the text of the pledge to see if the comma belongs after "Republic"? That comma doesn't make grammatical sense. Eclecticology, Friday, June 28, 2002
- What's an official source for the text? (I always had the impression of a comma at that point, not so much as a pause but as a parenthetical subclause, but that may just be a matter of the recitation that's not reflected in the text.) --Brion VIBBER
E's right, that comma is clearly wrong (it separates the noun "Republic" from the prepositional phrase "for which it stands" that modifies it. I couldn't find a 1953 copy of the Congressional Record (only 1994-present is online), but there is a copy of the pledge in the record of Wednesday's resolution, and it eliminates that comma as well as the one before "under God", which also makes sense. I'll change the text to that until somebody can find a good 1953 source. --LDC
- It may be possible to dig some of this stuff up at a local university library, but searching through a whole year's worth of congressional records doesn't sound like fun. ;) Does anyone have an approximate date, or a resolution number to look for? --Brion VIBBER
- Ah good, the date and sponsor of the resolution are already mentioned in the article.
Lots of irony here. The Pledge was written by a Socialist, and one of the two circuit court judges who ruled it unconstitutional is a Nixon appointee. --Zoe
- Don't get me started... In the 'free-est country in the world' I would not be free to drop 'under god' from the pledge. MH
Okay, I was near the library today and managed to poke in for a few minutes and look for the Congressional Record... I found the bit on the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 243) for adding "under God" being approved by the Senate (June 8, 1954; Congressional Record volume 100 part 6, page 7833-4 -- see text (http://leuksman.com/misc/pledge.html)). When I get a chance I'll go back and look for debate on the House side and the earlier resolution from the Senate (Senate Joint Resolution 126)... In the meantime, I found this quote from the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ferguson (R-MI) interesting (emphasis added):
- I believe it to be of great importance that we as a Nation recognize a higher power than ourselves in the guidance of our existence. This joint resolution recognizes that we believe there is a Divine Power, and that we, our children, and children's children should always recognize it, as we do also in engraving the words "In God We Trust" over the principal entrance to this Chamber.
Interpret as you will. --Brion VIBBER, Saturday, July 6, 2002
Oooh, here's another fun one. Rev. George Docherty, who started the whole mess with a sermon, "discussed the pledge of allegiance in these words":
- I could sit down and brood upon it, going over each word slowly in my mind. And I came to a strange conclusion. There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life. Indeed, apart form the mention of the phrase, "the United States of America," it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Moscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow with equal solemnity. Russia is also a republic, that claims to have overthrown the tyranny of kingship. Russia also claims to be indivisble.
In the House (http://leuksman.com/misc/pledge.html#brooks), Rep. Brooks of Louisiana said in support of the resolution to add "under God":
- Free nations today battle for their very existence in many parts of the world. Communism with its siren voice of false appeal is heard round the world and many peoples and many nations fall prey to these false headlights on the shores of time. One thing separates free peoples of the Western World from the rabid Communist, and this one thing is a belief in God. In adding this one phrase to our pledge of allegiance to our flag, we in effect declare openly that we denounce the pagan doctrine of communism and declare "under God" in favor of free government and a free world.
I'd be curious to hear what our free Western brethren think of that. :) --Brion 02:36 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
In 1954, which parties had the majority in House/Senate? I think this information should be added. AxelBoldt
- The Senate appears to have been neck-and-neck, actually changing balance several times during the 83rd Congress (see [1] (http://web.archive.org/web/20020212003003/http%3A//www.senate.gov/learning/brief_24.html) [via wayback machine]). At the time the resolution was approved (June 8, '54), it was 47 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 1 independent, and 1 vacancy (after the death of a Democratic Senator in May). In the House, the Republicans appear to have had a slight majority at the time of 221 to 213, with 1 independent (see [2] (http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.php)). --Brion VIBBER, Thursday, July 11, 2002
As of today, Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) the text contains the following interesting "incorrect" statement.
- The matter continues to be a symbolic representation of the ongoing struggle over religion in government in the United States.
Before I attempt a "correction" to what I think is a "flaw," I want to think about it.
First of all, personally I am sympathetic to what that phrase, even with the flaw, says--which for me consists of the following components of making sense of the data.
- First, there is an ongoing struggle "over religion."
- Second, the controversy over the "under God" is a "symbolic representation."
I wonder if there is not something more fundamental going on here. By fundamental, I mean in the sense that, once upon a time, someone like Benjamin Franklin looked at lightning striking from the a dark cloud in the sky and pondered, "I wonder if there is not something more fundamental going on here."
That is,
- Is the struggle really over "religion" or is the struggle something more fundamental--like wanting to be different from the NONspecial nations?
- What is the mechanism behind the "symbolic"? That is, what is the mapping from the "symbol" to the "real thing"?
Along those lines, I would like to develop a "fix" to what I see as a "flaw" in the above statement. So I propose to use this area as a workspace to draft a replacement for the above sentence "The matter continues . . . ."
I begin with the lead in paragraph to the "fix." Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
<<Beginning of proposed insertion>>
Patterns in the controversy
The points-of-view, compromises, and personal interests in the matter illustrate what may be more general patterns in the ongoing struggle over religion in government in the United States.
o used in the following because there is a bug in the ** bulleting program.
- o Some scholars conclude that the American judges merely express their own personal biases about "God" when they hold one way or the other in the cases in the struggle over religion. For example, one reporter said that after polling law professors, he thought that the 2002 ruling was "dead on arrival" at the United States Supreme Court because every Supreme Court session begins with the ceremonial plea, "God save this honorable court." [3] (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/toobin.pledge.otsc/index.html)
- o The dissenting justice in the 2002 ruling stated that the ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court's explicit statements that "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was merely a ceremonial reference to history and was not a religious faith. Justice brief at 1. (http://www.cnn.com/virtual/2002/law/newdow.reh.pet.6.pdf)
- o However, the 1954 House Report of the legislators who inserted the "under God" phrase into the pledge of allegiance said that the "under God" phrase was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." 154 U.S.C.A.A.N 2339, 2340.
- o The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, was an atheist who said that he was offended by the phrase "In God we trust" on the coins in his pocket. He felt that "In God we trust" was a state sponsored statement of religious faith which was illegal under the separation of church and state. [4] (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/)
- o But when Mr. Newdow read up on the court cases, he thought he might have a problem showing that he was injured by merely having the statement "In God we trust" on the coins in his pocket. He thought he might have a better argument for injury if he said "I have a right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers." CNN phone interview. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/)
- o Two of the three judges agreed that Mr. Newdow had a "right to direct the religious education of his daughter" even though they knew he was an atheist. Justice brief at 3. (http://www.cnn.com/virtual/2002/law/newdow.reh.pet.6.pdf)
- o The Ninth Circuit judges refused to overturn the 2002 ruling even though they knew that Mr. Newdow's wife had sole legal custody and that Mr. Newdow's daughter told the court that she wanted to be allowed to pledge allegiance to the flag. Justice brief at 17. (http://www.cnn.com/virtual/2002/law/newdow.reh.pet.6.pdf)
- o Mr. Newdow made the following analogy. He said that he didn't think the Christians would be very glad if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase "one nation under NO God." CNN phone interview. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/)
- o Some religions in America believe that the Supreme Court's separation of church and state violates the principle of separation of church and state because the Court discriminates against religious belief as compared to non-religious beliefs. They point to the fact that the separation of church and state is based on Thomas Jefferson's religious belief that "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ." Everson case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&page=1#12), starting the forcible separation.
- o Some religions hold beliefs that disagree with Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs. Some religions in America hold that religion is not and cannot be separated from government. [5] (http://liberty-ca.org/religion.htm)
- o For example, many religions in America require as dogma that religion should be taught in the public schools. For example, the Catholic Church Canon Law 799 states that "Christ's faithful are to strive to secure that in the civil society the laws which regulate the formation of the young, also provide a religious and moral education in the schools that is in accord with the conscience of the parents." [6] (http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0793-0821.htm#par1677)
Summary of pattern.
- o The atheist plaintiff appears to be in the position of claiming that a reference to God is meaningful, and hence the court should recognize the religious bias in the reference to God.
- o Meanwhile, the religious defenders of the reference to God appear to be in the position of claiming that the reference to God is religiously meaningless, and merely a ceremonial reference to history.
<<End of proposed insertion with all comments included as of this date>> Rednblu 04:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I disapprove of the proposed insertion, although I appreciate the spirit of contribution and scholarship in which it appears to be made. My disapproval is on two points: --FOo
First, this article is about the Pledge of Allegiance;
- Yes. And a major problem with the Pledge is the words IN the pledge. Would you agree? Rednblu 23:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
it is not about the relation of church and state in the United States of America. While it touches on the larger issue, this article is not the best place to put political-philosophy discussions of opinion on that matter. The article on separation of church and state, or First Amendment, might be.
- Right. I thought so too at first. But when I read this pledge entry I saw that the details of the abstractions of the "political-philosophy discussions" are so neatly illustrated in the Pledge case.
Second, some elements of the proposed insertion appear to be points of rhetoric rather than encyclopedic material. If these elements were to find their way into any Wikipedia article, it would be best that they be ascribed to particular partisans, balanced with claims from other views. To claim to describe the "structure of the controversy" without this would be to present a lopsided structure.
- I don't know what you mean. What I get from your comment is that I might put together a "System description page" which would attempt to describe how the factions in the debate interact. Then there could be links to the balanced description of the factions.
- Maybe this "System description page" would only have a link to this Pledge page?
Ascribing certain statements to Newdow, particular judges, and the Catholic Church is valuable -- other elements, such as claims about "many religions", appear to connote majority or argumentum ad populum where this is not appropriate.
- ?? Majority and factional politics is much of what is going on in the debate over religion in the government in the U.S., is that not true?
- If you take an objective view of the society, would you not describe the various "views" of the components of the society?
I find the question of the status of expressions such as "under God" and "God save this honorable Court" -- the question of whether they are "ceremonial references" or elements of "religious faith" very interesting and relevant to this article, however. It is what distinguishes this issue (and similar ones, such as posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools) from other Establishment Clause issues.
- Yes. That is what jumped out at me from what was already written into the Pledge page. I first said to myself, "Why is all of this time-decaying data in the Pledge page. And then I said to myself, "Ah. These issues are unique to the pledge."
- You bring to my attention that there are some unique pieces to the Ten Commandments cases. There maybe the unique pieces are something like the following--"What is wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments as a neutral statement that that is where much of Western law comes from?"
It involves a claim on one side that a reference to God is merely ceremonial, and thus of no consequence; and on the other side that it is precisely ceremonial -- that is, it is in essence a religious ritual, which cannot be inconsequential!
- Yes. Interesting.
The secular side appears to be in the position of claiming that a reference to God is meaningful (and thus a piece of religious bias) whilst the religious or traditionalist side appears to be in the position of claiming that it is religiously meaningless (and thus not an establishment of religion). --FOo
- Isn't that interesting! Yes. That was exactly what intrigued me. I will edit the insertion to use your phrasing.
- I reversed my insertion of this piece into the page--waiting for your comments. Rednblu 23:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Rednblu, I still have some significant reservations about the "patterns" section:
Structurally this section seems to be an outline, or perhaps something akin to a Usenet thread -- a tree of responses to responses. It brooks rewriting into plain encyclopedia prose.
Moreover, some of the apparent responses do not appear to actually be responses to the foregoing points. For instance, the 2002 dissent is placed as if it were a response to the CNN Jeffrey Toobin interview, which it is not. If the encyclopedist is describing a debate or an historical progression of opinion or ideology, s/he would do well to place the statements in chronological order. However, if the encyclopedist is outlining the views of several camps or groups, creating subcategories for these camps -- such as "separationists", "anti-separationists", and "legislative and court opinions" -- would make more sense.
Some of the points seem to contain non-sequiturs. For instance, the first point states that some scholars claim that judges are expressing personal bias, then states as an example of this that a journalist opines that the Supreme Court's ritual will be seen as a counterexample to the Newdow position. As it stands, this is a non-sequitur: the stated example isn't an example of that which the paragraph calls it an example.
Others of the points appear to be, or to imply, ad-hominem arguments. For instance: "Two of the three judges agreed that Mr. Newdow had a 'right to direct the religious education of his daughter' even though they knew he was an atheist." This phrasing implies that someone -- the third judge, or the average or expected opinion -- believes that Newdow does not or should not have that right because he is an atheist. This is a claim sufficiently outré that it should not be left implied: if there is someone relevant who actually holds this belief, it should be cited; otherwise, it should not be hinted at.
Others flatly assert opinion as fact, e.g. "They point to the fact that the separation of church and state is based on Thomas Jefferson's religious belief...." It is not a fact that separation is founded on Jefferson's religious belief; that claim is part of the opinion being described. (Others might hold, e.g., that separation is the historical and political outgrowth of religious toleration acts in Europe, which served to defuse the religious tensions that created so much war and civil strife. This would set separation not as a disconnection from tradition, but a continuation of a successful progression; it would presumably be the view of a liberal-conservative.)
Still other points introduce tangential points which do not bear weight upon the case, e.g. "Some religions hold beliefs that disagree with Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs." Without some introduction to what Jefferson's religious beliefs have to do with the matter -- as opposed to, e.g. the political beliefs of Jefferson and other founders, and the interpretations thereof by the courts -- this is simply a tangent into the distance.
All in all, I think your idea to present different opinions in the larger controversy is valuable. However, I suspect that this particular piece of text is too fraught -- I've tried rearranging pieces of it into either the chronological or camps structure I describe above, and come up with nothing worth posting. Any thoughts as to where to go next? --FOo 02:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I will rewrite that section to include your worthy comments. Rednblu 02:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Poem?
The prayer at issue in Engel v. Vitale is several times referred to as a "poem" in this article. What sort of accommodationist doubletalk is that? Engel is frequently cited as the decision that banned prayer in public schools. I have never once seen any credible source refer to the recitation in that case as a "poem." Here's the text (which can also be found in the article), for those who are interested:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
Now, can any person reasonably say that's not a prayer?
I'll also note that in the dicussion of Engel, the article notes that "the Supreme Court has banned some expressions of "God" from public schools." Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth--the Court has only stated that certain religious utterances may not be given state endorsement by having state employees (teachers) lead students in their recitation. Any student or teacher who wishes to talk about God or pray to God may do so, just not as part of an official school routine. This whole section seems to be seriously biased.
- You're very right. The lines in Engel are a prayer, or more specifically an invocation (a beseeching of divine intervention). Edited. --FOo 03:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. "Invocation" is precisely the word I was looking for.
True or false??
True or false: somewhere on the Internet, there is a voting poll about the whether the phrase "under God" should stay in the pledge to the flag. 66.245.2.190 17:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've seen several polls.
Loyalty oath?
Removed from ==opposition and controversy== section:
- Currently the United States is the only western country with a loyalty oath for schoolchildren.
This is a troll. The Pledge is not an oath, and no-one has to take it. Ellsworth 23:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No-one? Are you certain? A friend of mine had to take the pledge as part of becoming a U.S. citizen in the late 1980s. It may be different now, it may not be strictly required, but she eventually "took the pledge" for pragmatic reasons.--EmmetCaulfield 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
What about children who aren't US citizens?
What about children who aren't US citizens? Are they normally exempted? (I don't live in the US, so I don't know this) -- 84.57.8.13 00:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Dunno. Don't think anyone's required to say the Pledge. I had a classmate who did not say the pledge because of his religious beliefs (Jehovah's Witness).
Pledge Protection Act
If someone has time, we could act some info on Sensenbrenner's Pledge Protection Act. [7] (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/0903/091703-pledge.htm) Sander123 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Under God" ruling
I'll need to do some research, but I think that this section needs a little tweaking. It should include the fact that some of the opposition to the phrase included some conservatives and Christians. Their biggest complaint is that including the phrase trivializes God, and using it could be considered sacrilegious. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 09:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
personal attacks and threats to block against the whole story.
There are some people on Wikipedia who knowingly engage in personal attacks and deletions (even of links) of anyone who explains the connection between the pledge of allegiance and the national socialism of its author Francis Bellamy and his cousin Edward Bellamy, the author. It is behavior that breaks the wikipedia rules. What kind of people cover-up for Nazis and that horrid ideology? The cover-ups include the top media cover ups: They cover up many historic photos the Pledge of Allegiance showing the original straight-arm salute http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and the fact that the the Bellamys were National Socialists, and that the Pledge's straight arm salute was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) http://rexcurry.net/pledge1.html As part of their cover-up they perpetuate the Roman Salute myth. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html And they lie about the oath of the horatii as an absurd support for a Roman connection http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html They cover up for the swastika and its use as a sick socialist symbol http://rexcurry.net/swastikanews.html They cover up for the socialist trio of atrocities. http://rexcurry.net/socialists.html They cover up the fact that socialists helped start WWII with the National Socialist German Workers' Party & the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as allies. http://rexcurry.net/socialistwar.html They cover up for and are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust, of which the monstrous Holocaust was part http://rexcurry.net/mediacoverup.html They cover up for the National Socialist German Worker's Party and always try to use the hackneyed shorthand "Nazi" http://rexcurry.net/swastikamedia.html They repeat the most common cover-ups of the media http://rexcurry.net/mediapledge.html and http://rexcurry.net/socialistmedia.html And they cover up the newer U.S. Supreme Court case that exposes the socialist history of the Pledge http://rexcurry.net/pledgewonschik.html
As an example, most of the "Roman Salute" page on Wikipedia is pure poppycock, especially near the top "The Roman salute is a closed finger, flat-palm-down hand raised at an angle (usually 45 degrees) and was used by the Roman Republic. It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from 1787?-1934?, known since 1892 as the Bellamy salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the Middle East and South America. When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the Roman salute from the Italian fascists." The foregoing is all incorrect and of course without any attribution nor support on the Wikipedia page because there is no support. It is not a Roman salute and never was.
Similar criticisms apply to the Wikipedia pages on Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Date: The pledge was recognized on June 22, 1942. Section 7 of the Flag Code: 56 STAT 379.
- National Socialism: Describing Francis Bellamy as a Nazi is scurrillous. Edward Bellamy was a Baptist minister, an unlikely occupation for one.Septentrionalis 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Argument in opposition: The Pledge is flawed per se
Another argument against the Pledge of Allegiance is that allegiance itself is a feudal concept (i.e., obedient servitude, as of a serf to a liege lord), not a democratic one, and that to pledge allegiance to an emblem is to turn it into a bearer certificate of political authority. In other words, by taking the Pledge of Allegiance, one is swearing to serve and obey, without question, anyone who wraps himself up in the U.S. flag. This turns dissent into treason, and in spirit runs contrary to the freedom of conscience enshrined in the Constitution.
--Geenius at Wrok 01:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality Concern
Quote: Many object to the exploition of children by leading them in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon. They feel that having children recite the pledge trivializes the serious commitments it requires, and the constant repetition insults the honor and wastes the time of those children who view their first recitation as binding. Many parents object to this trivialization of the pledge and emphasize the pledge's seriousness by insisting that their children wait until their majority before making any such pledge.
Personally, I would probably agree with those that express concern of trivializing the pledge by encouraging or even requiring children to recite it daily. However, I think the first sentence of this selection is using unfairly biased language, specifically "exploition." First, I'm pretty much positive that's not a word, at least, according to Dictionary.com it isn't (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exploition). Assuming the intended meaning/word is "exploitation," I don't think that's a fair sentence. This first sentence is introducing the audience to a group's idea, because, unless I'm mistaken in my assessment of Wikipedia, the goal is to provide quality, unbiased articles in the same way a commercial encyclopedia would (if not better) and is therefore not a view held by the article. The first sentence is saying that children are exploited, which I know is not an accepted fact. I believe a far better sentence would be something like, "Many believe leading children in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon is exploitation." This separates the encyclopedia from the opinions of others a great deal more. I would even go so far as to suggest using a word other than exploitation or at least saying "comparable to exploitation" or something less harsh. Suggesting even indirectly that children are being exploited is a heavy charge and sure to evoke negative feelings in readers. This type of language is better suited to a persuasive speech than an encyclopedia entry, in my opinion.
I'm not by any means any kind of expert, and I'm by no means a regular contributor on Wikipedia, but I think the issue needs to be addressed. I often cite Wikipedia in homework, but the troublesome wording in this article makes me hesitant to use it as a reliable, unbiased source in an upcoming speech.
Thanks so much for your work, time, and attention.
4:50, 31 March 2005 (UTC)
- Have corrected the spelling of exploitation. The statements about exploitation are in the criticism and opposition section. Thanx for pointing to the "adults agreeing upon" point, because that does not seem complete, because for some of those who consider leading children in the pledge, it would be an issue even if there wasn't the multiple interpretations. The issue for them is, that if the pledge is even if understood, to consent to such an important commitment, the child should be older. We have ages of "consent" for sex and marriage, but not for an even more important pledge. --Silverback 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Libertarians and the pledge
I have removed an allegation that Libertarians believe that the wording of the pledge obligates voters to vote Libertarian. As a party officer I can tell you that that is patently false and that I have never met any libertarian who believes any such thing. --Dfranke
Removing it again. Whomever reinserted it, I suggest you post here explaining why. --Dfranke
- Now you've met someone. Tell me what other party's positions are consistent with the liberty clause.--Silverback 03:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. However, the idea that such a pledge could be considered binding at all is itself rather inconsistent with liberty. I'm changing 'some' to a 'few', and we'll leave it at that. --Dfranke
- Hmmm, pledges are nonbinding (meaningless?) is an interesting defense of pledges. Perhaps leading pledges then is a good use of government employee time. I doubt there would be so much contention over the wording if the pledge did not imply some moral obligation. --Silverback 05:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- 'Some' may be preferable as not making a statistical statement. I know a Libertarian Congressional candidate whom I believe would agree with the opinion being disputed. (And there is a serious and ancient argument that binding pledges are more important in the condition of statelessness) Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indivisibility
" Communists have been criticized as undemocratic, because they intend the election they win will be the last fair election with any choice, yet supporters of the indivisibility clause hold the same view about the elections which result in statehood."
The second clause of this sentence is objectionable. It puts words in other people's mouths - and it does so in error. Many supporters of indivisibility believe that the Union could be made divisible - it merely has not been. Therefore electing entry into the Union is not in principle irrevocable.
If this is removed, the sentence is almost entirely redundant.
Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can see no way to recast without constructions of the form, "opponents of the use of 'indivisible' believe that its supporters believe", which is intolerable syntax. Deleting; let him who can rephrase. Septentrionalis 19:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
what about the teachers
I think there should be a mention that requiring teachers to lead the class disqualifies some teachers from employment; namely those whose religion or convictions prevent them engaging in such an exercise. In other words, this requirement is tantamount to state-sanctioned hiring discrimination on the basis of religion.
- I'm not familiar with the case law on the subject. If you have particular sources or cases in mind, please post 'em -- it is indeed a side of the issue that does not usually get aired, since it has to do with employment requirements and specifically employment with the government. --FOo 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)