Pledge of Allegiance Bill

[Ebowed]

I'm obviously in favor of this.

[Ebowed]

NAY!

[Ebowed]

Then we'd be debating why we need a Pledge in the first place, and if we do need one, what its content should be.

I wish it were as simple as those two options, but if it were, the first option would supposedly have more support in a socially-libertarian-leaning senate such as this.

For now, I'll just say: when the bill came up in the last Senate, nobody ever presented a clear-cut reason as to why we need a Pledge.  Some people said it was so that people would have a way to express their patriotism: clearly, you can do that without the government giving you a version that you may express it in.  As the debate around the original bill was not actually to abolish the Pledge at first, but to remove "under God," it seems the majority would never be happy no matter what the Pledge contains, whether it be under God, under Dave, or neither.  To me, it seems the solution would be to end official governmental sanction of the Pledge and let citizens choose how they wish to say the Pledge, if they want to do so at all.  That way, people who want to say under God can still do so.  People who want to say under Dave may do so.  And people who don't feel the need to recite a pledge won't have to.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[Ebowed]

Aye.

[Ebowed]

Why do you think we should have an officially sanctioned pledge, Senator?

[Ebowed]

I think it creates national unity.

As do mandated uniforms or an established national religion.

[Ebowed]

I don't support a national religion or language or anything.

Then why a National Pledge?