Pledge of Allegiance Bill

[Speed of Sound]

I urge both of my seators to vote in favor of this bill.

[Akno21]

I urge both of my seators to vote in favor of this bill.

[Jake]

Wrong Emsworth. The pledge acts as a tool to remind people that they are Americans, with the rights and responsibilities of Americans. Rewrite it to say whatever you want, but removing it just because some on the left don't like patriotism is fairly stupid. If we're so concerned about indoctrinating children at school, lets have a fair version of history get taught, rather than the PC bullsh*t that is standard fare these days. All this blacks can do no wrong, Hitler was the worst person ever, and saint worship of Lincoln and Washington is worse IMO than repeating a ten second pledge every morning.

[Emsworth]

The pledge acts as a tool to remind people that they are Americans, with the rights and responsibilities of Americans.

I assert that it does no such thing. Any value it may have to children has been diminished to nothing or nearly nothing by the daily, almost mindless repetition of the pledge in schools. As to adults, it shouldn't matter, as almost all of them don't say the pledge regularly anyway.

In any event, I would have hoped that the patriotism of the Atlasian People is strong enough to exist on its own, to stand without the crutch of a series of words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are free to address that issue at the regional level, Jake. With all due respect, the federal government is not concerned here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would word the bill as:

"The Pledge of Alelgiance is reverting to its original form, as written by a clergyman in the 1800s."

[Gabu]

Wrong Emsworth. The pledge acts as a tool to remind people that they are Americans, with the rights and responsibilities of Americans.

Why do you need the government to remind people of that?  Isn't patriotism much more meaningful when you're patriotic because you want to be?  I've gone through the Canadian national anthem multiple times when going to school, and it never really made an impact on me.  I've found that patriotism came from examining what your country has done and from finding items to be proud of, not from reciting some pat phrase every single day.

If we want to encourage patriotism, wouldn't it be better to simply show children why they should be proud, instead of simply leading them through a pledge that quickly becomes meaningless after being repeated so many times, day after day?

Rewrite it to say whatever you want, but removing it just because some on the left don't like patriotism is fairly stupid.

This is a straw man argument.  The majority of those who want it removed don't want it removed because they hate patriotism; they want it removed because they feel that the government has no business requiring citizens to recite something over and over, every day.  Even if you note that citizens are not required to say it, they nonetheless are expected to say it by pretty much anyone present, and peer pressure can be a very powerful thing, especially in a school scenario with children.

If we're so concerned about indoctrinating children at school, lets have a fair version of history get taught, rather than the PC bullsh*t that is standard fare these days. All this blacks can do no wrong, Hitler was the worst person ever, and saint worship of Lincoln and Washington is worse IMO than repeating a ten second pledge every morning.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Given that that issue is completely separate from the issue of pledge, bringing the former up when discussing the pledge is essentially irrelevant.  If you can write a bill that addresses this issue, I'm sure you'll find a senator to introduce it.

[Jake]

No, the issues are closely related. Not only are children expected and required to learn it, unlike the pledge, but they will fail if they don't regurgitate the government mandated curriculum. Regardless, the Senate surely has better things to do than ban the pledge. Maybe issues like the budget, social security, health care, voter de-registration, and education ring a bell.

[Emsworth]

No, the issues are closely related. Not only are children expected and required to learn it, unlike the pledge, but they will fail if they don't regurgitate the government mandated curriculum.

As I said, the curriculum is a regional issue, not a federal one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The pledge is not being banned. You can say it, the regions can still recognize it, and schools can still require it. The federal government will not, however, recognize any pledge as official if this bill passes: I see no harm whatsoever in it.

Even though the pledge was written in the 1800s, there was no federally-sanctioned pledge until 1942, with no adverse effects whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those aren't grounds for voting this bill down, though.

[Ebowed]

Jake, I'm sure there are many who think anyone who focuses on issues important to you-- such as abortion-- should focus on "more important" issues.  Just because this issue is not widely discussed, that does not mean it should not be addressed.  I agree with Gabu and Emsworth's posts regarding the other points you brought up.

[Jake]

I would hope the Senate wouldn't waste time on abortion either Ebowed.

[Ebowed]

Well yes, seeing as it is a regional issue.  I'm just using it as an example: just because you don't think the Pledge issue is important, does not mean it should not be addressed.

[Joe Republic]

This seems to be going well.  Nobody has really provided a valid argument against this bill, including the three senators who were so keen to stifle any debate on it.

[MasterJedi]

This seems to be going well.  Nobody has really provided a valid argument against this bill, including the three senators who were so keen to stifle any debate on it.

We already had a lot of debate on this before.

There's no reason to get rid of the pledge. People are saying it's forcing you to be patritotic. It's not you don't have to say it if you don't want to. It's optional so it's not trying to force you to be patriotic, just giving you another option.

So because you don't want to say it you want to just get rid of it. Why can't you just leave it alone? It's not hurting you to sit/stand there and hear other people say it so just leave well enough alone.

[Emsworth]

People are saying it's forcing you to be patritotic. It's not you don't have to say it if you don't want to.

Most school students would disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, but why is it necessary for the government to officially sanction it? While the pledge has been around since the 1800s, people managed to be perfectly patriotic without it being sanctioned until 1942.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're not getting rid of anything. We are merely reverting to the pre-1942 situation, in which the government did not attempt to legislate how people should express their patriotism.

[MasterJedi]

People are saying it's forcing you to be patritotic. It's not you don't have to say it if you don't want to.

Most school students would disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, but why is it necessary for the government to officially sanction it? While the pledge has been around since the 1800s, people managed to be perfectly patriotic without it being sanctioned until 1942.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're not getting rid of anything. We are merely reverting to the pre-1942 situation, in which the government did not attempt to legislate how people should express their patriotism.

And if those students are being forced they can complaign, go to court and get that fixed. Yes, you are getting rid of an optional pledge that's effecting no one unless they wish it to effect them. Just stop trying to take away our option to say the pledge the when and way it is now. Although I already know that the Senate will get rid of the pledge, it's not like my arguments will change your mind. That's what pissed me off, people can't leave well enough alone. People always want to get rid of something they don't agree with even if it doesn't effect them. Bah, I'm done, I won't make a difference in this debate so I'll leave, disgusted.

[Emsworth]

Just stop trying to take away our option to say the pledge the when and way it is now.

Where have I done that? I am not in the habit of supporting bills that restrict the freedom of speech. Perhaps, you could point out how this bill is taking away someone's right to say whatever he pleases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't accept your premise. By that line of reasoning, a man shouldn't try to get rid of abortions, because they don't affect him. By that line of reasoning, a white person shouldn't try to get rid of anti-black discrimination, because it doesn't affect him. By that line of reasoning, a clergyman shouldn't try to get rid of gay marriage, because it doesn't affect him.

(Please note that I am only making the comparison to consider the merits of your line of reasoning; I am not saying, for example, that the pledge is like abortion.)

[MasterJedi]

Just stop trying to take away our option to say the pledge the when and way it is now.

Where have I done that? I am not in the habit of supporting bills that restrict the freedom of speech. Please point out how I am taking away someone's right to say whatever he pleases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't accept that logic. By that line of reasoning, unmarried men shouldn't try to get rid of abortions, simply because it doesn't affect them.

You're trying to take away the pledge which means that it won't be said anymore which means you're taking away peoples rights to say it the way it is at the time it is now. If you get rid of it I'd like to see you try to say the pledge in school, should be interesting what happens. (As in you getting bitched at and not being able to say it).

Nice twisting with the second quote.

Oh and by your logic you might want to try to get rid of the national anthem along with saying it at sporting events. Isn't that a way to try to legislate patriotism? It's optional just like the pledge but they want us to say it.

[Emsworth]

You're trying to take away the pledge which means that it won't be said anymore which means you're taking away peoples rights to say it the way it is at the time it is now.

No, that's a misinterpretation of this bill. What clause in the bill changes anything with regard to schools? Education is a regional issue; the bill obviously cannot have any effect in schools, unless regional governments provide otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national anthem is more symbolic, like the national flower or the national bird. It is not an affirmation of allegiance like the pledge.

[Ebowed]

Senator, nobody is trying to take away your right to recite the Pledge.  All this would do is allow you to say the Pledge in any form you please (so you can keep "under God" without controversy when reciting it yourself), because the government's sanctioning of it would be ended.  And from your point of view, what is more meaningful and patriotic: saying your Pledge of Allegiance on your own, or saying the Pledge that the government wants you to repeat?

[PBrunsel]

Well, since this is not taking away the right to say the pledge, I am sorry for my vote to table this. Ebowed and Emsworth's arguments are extremely good, and I have been persuaded to vote for this.

[Joe Republic]

I think of it like this.  Many people pray to God most days, if not very day.  Let's imagine that the government has come up with a scripted prayer to be said simultaneously with other people, and has 'suggested' when it should be said too.  Which makes more sense: the people abide by the government's own prayer and recite it daily so that the words have no personal relevance to yourself or God any more; or you choose to forget that scripted prayer, and pray to God in whatever way you choose, whenever you want.

That's the best analogy I can come up with.

[Ebowed]

Well, since this is not taking away the right to say the pledge, I am sorry for my vote to table this. Ebowed and Emsworth's arguments are extremely good, and I have been persuaded to vote for this.

Excellent to hear, Senator!

[Emsworth]

As this is a controversial issue, I will not be too rigid in enforcing time limits for debate. Are there any further speeches to be made?

[Colin]

Well I'm probably going to bring this to vote at around 6 PM if their are no objections.

[Gabu]

I've said essentially I can think of to say.  Joe Republic put it very well, so thank you to him.