.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, September 16, 2005

 

New Op-Ed - Pledge of Allegiance case

Pledge of Allegiance case - New op-ed...

Comments:
I'm perfectly sure that you would not regard any pledge of allegiance to the United States as voluntary or inclusive if if included the words "under the Goddess" or "under the witness of our ancestors".

I sure you would have a pink fit if your children were forced to chose between not reciting a pledge of allegiance (which would suggest what to all the other children) or the religious faith that you are raising them under.

The United States was founded and survived 170 years before it was decided that the words "under God" would be added in 1954.

It was added during the red-baiting scares of the period and the reason for its addition is plain to all who've bothered to read the Congressional records from the time.

That you -- or any founding father who, interestingly, didn't see a need to have the words in there -- are not personally bothered by using the words is irrelevant, I'd suggest.
 
Question; Why even have the pledge of alligence; apart from North Korea; why is there a need to have over hyped, over the top patrioticism in the USA? We don't have that sort of drama in New Zealand, UK, Australia or any other country; why does there need to be this sort of over the top patrioticism in the USA?
 
If the United States were founded upon goddess worship or ancestor worship, I might have my kids sit out the exercise but I do not believe I would sue to get my way.

I know next to nothing about New Zealand but I suspect it is a more homogeneous society than the US. We need some nationalism to keep the this diverse bunch on some semblance of the same page.
 
PS - Newdow has made it pretty clear that he will not stop with the Pledge. In God we trust is next. He already sued to forbid prayer at the Inaugural and will take aim on every public mention of God that he can find.
 
Actually Warren,

New Zealand is and is not a more homogenous society vs the United States. About 15% are Maori for example. NZ (and Australia) also saw enormous post-WWII immigration that have vastly altered the social makeup of our people.

Despite all the history (and continued problems with) racism and ethnocentric politics -- what we have been spared is the institutional, legal racism that has stained the U.S. (such as slavery). We also do not have anywhere near the segregated communities or the slums/ghettos that bedevil so many U.S. cities. We do have a continued embarrassment with remote aboriginal communities in Oz, and I think everyone is (at present) bewildered about "what to do". But very few have abandoned the problems, even as we struggle with the solutions.

Versus the U.S. I think Aus/NZ have been overwhelmingly successful examples of integrated multicultural socities. I'd say Canada (despite it's own special quirks) also manages things better.

As one example, Australia altered it's "pledge" and national anthem because the previously very-British inheritance simply wasn't appropriate.

We also expect loyalty -- but to Australia, the rule of law, and to the odd way we have of tolerating each other rather than to a particular cultural artifact.

I do find it odd though that you seem to more keen on the 1954 addition to the pledge than did the founding fathers. Surely, if it was good enough for them...? :)
 
P.S. I always cite a very good example of the way we are about these matters...

Very few Australians know the words to our national anthem. Rather than something to be embarrassed by, I happen to be PROUD of that fact.

I believe it shows, in a round-about way, the real expectations we have of our citizens. If you suggested to an Australian that not knowing the words to a song in someway proved them to be "unpatriotic" (a word we cringe over as well) they would tell you to go take a flying leap off a cliff.
 
As I said, the Pledge is only one of the targets of Newdow. Other mentions of God in place from much earlier in history are also targets. So I am not more keen on it, it is just the issue on the radar screen at the moment.

Thanks for the insider view of down under. For some reason, I thought you all were from Britain. Forgive me :)
 
That one man must be a remarkable fellow...

Your op-ed was the "Pledge of Allegiance case", and frankly who cares whatever other bees are under Newdow's bonnet. The question before the Court is whether the adding of the words in 1954 was unconstitutional -- and that question should be answered on it's own merit rather than because it's viewed as some part of a vast Newdow Agenda(c).

I'm sure the Courts will deal with any other matters if and when he (or anyone else) raises them in the future.

And I might leave your perception of Australia's "all British" heritage for someone Irish to comment on...
 
And I might leave your perception of Australia's "all British" heritage for someone Irish to comment on...

I didn't mean all Australians. I meant grantdale.
 
If you must know, or even if you don't... one half of grantdale is Maori, and nobility at that. His iwi are from Otaki, about an hour north-west of Wellington.

Fortunately they reformed their cannibal ways many years ago, and it's no longer a death-causing tabu to touch his hair.
 
yo i dont c da problem, if ur not a christian dont say it! Geez, dont make a big deal. the pledge was changed in 1954 and 51 years later NOW ur complainin wit all dats goin on.... hurricane, war, suicide, homicide. its like HOLY SHIT! this is da last thing we need. atheists complainin 51 yrs l8r bout da pledge. just skip da part under God. sure its unconstitutional, yea they r goin 2 change it but im stil gonna say under whether u like or not!!!
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
None of that will be tolerated.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?