Pledge of Allegiance Bill

[Emsworth]

Pledge of Allegiance Bill

1. There shall be no officially sanctioned pledge of allegiance to Atlasia, its flag, or its government that shall be given or suggested to private citizens to recite in or on the grounds of any public institution, including, but not limited to, public schools.

2. The content of section 1 shall not be construed to illegalize oaths of office given to individuals who have been elected or appointed to a government position. Oaths of office in all cases shall remain untouched and shall continue to be required before any government service shall commence.

Sponsor: Sen. Gabu

[Ebowed]

I'm obviously in favor of this.

[Joe Republic]

I'm obviously in favor of this.

*shouts from the audience gallery:*

Me too! 

[Gabu]

I'm obviously in favor of this, and will take questions if anyone has any.

[Platypus]

I urge both my senators to support this.

[Gabu]

I urge both my senators to support this.

I introduced this, so I don't think I'll have trouble with that.

[Platypus]

you aren't BOTH of my senators, Gabu.

It was a more polite way of saying "Vote for this you little red-blue-whatever-avatared appointee, or i'll *use your imagination*"

[MasterJedi]

And I'm against this based on how I voted and debated last time.

[DanielX]

I request that this bill be tabled.

[Emsworth]

The question is on the motion to table the bill (reject without debate). All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

I would urge the Senate to vote No, so that it may debate the issue before coming to a final decision.

[Defarge]

I must agree with the Vice-President.
Nay

[DanielX]

Aye

[PBrunsel]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Ebowed]

NAY!

[Colin]

Nay

I agree with the Vice President that this issue should be discussed in greater length and be brought to a full vote.

[Gabu]

What the hell?  Nay.  This version of the bill was proposed as an amendment and was rejected earlier, and never got any sort of substantial debate.  I introduced it as a separate bill in the hopes that we could actually address the option that received a plurality of support from the citizens of Atlasia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

I had hoped that we had moved beyond a time where we used legislative trickery to kill debate

[Platypus]

what is there to debate? There are two quite simple options, 1. There should be a pledge, 2. There shouldn't.

[Gabu]

what is there to debate? There are two quite simple options, 1. There should be a pledge, 2. There shouldn't.

Well, it seems to me that that's what there is to debate on: whether or not there should be a pledge... am I missing something?

[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.

[Platypus]

Actually, I fully agree Ebowed. There should be no government mandated pledge.

[Emsworth]

One Senator is absent. With five Nays, the motion to table is defeated.

I would advise the Senate that the motion to table should be used only to dispose of frivolous legislation (e.g., Nasolation), not bills that one disagrees with. I thank Senators Defarge, Al, Ebowed, Gabu, and Colin for agreeing with me in this.

[Sam Spade]

Abstain for the record.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps we may commence debating this bill, and those who oppose it may give their reasons.

I feel that there is absolutely no need for a federally sanctioned pledge of allegiance. It is said by the proponents of the pledge that it allows citizens to express their patriotism. But, why is it necessary for the federal government to sanction one particular means of expressing patriotism? I'm sure that the People can express their patriotism quite freely, and on their own, without the federal government telling them which way is the "correct" way.

Do the opponents of this bill fear that the People will suddenly become unpatriotic if the pledge is no longer sanctioned? I would think that the People would not: the patriotism of our citizenry is based not on a few words, but on their actual feelings, their actual thoughts, their actual sentiments. I think that, to a true patriot, there would be no need for the government to sanction a pledge of allegiance: he would remain faithful to his country, regardless of the official status of some particular sentence.