TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pledge of Allegiance @ school??
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

I remember having to say this pledge when I was younger, but by 10 or 11 I simply didn't say anything during the �pledge.�

In the higher grades we no longer said the pledge.

I don't think of it as a big problem either way, and I tend to think of it in the same terms of having "God" on our money.


I also remember my kindergarten teacher telling us to pray during the first Gulf War that not many people would be killed.

Also one of my teachers in 6th grade had posters mentioning Jesus on his wall, but I let it slide because I liked him.

And there were some Gideons, or Amish, or Fundies, handing out Bibles outside my secondary school on several occasions.


That's the closest I had seen to an endorsement of religion in my entire public school career, so I don�t know how that would compare to Europe, Mexico, or Canada for example.

In Texas though the Fundies took over the State legislature, so who knows what kind of crazy shit they�ve passed by now.

I suspect anything radical would be thrown out in court.

i find it amazing how some1 can try to take out something our country was founded on..

when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom and guess what, they were Christians .. they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers... so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state, and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance... the nation was founded by people who believed in God.. suck it up

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic In the UK it is compulsory for every school to have one daily collective act of Christian worship

Is it? We never I don't think... Had assemblys every so often when we sang stuff and had Sally Army people speak and stuff.

Only time in High School was when we got handed out these little red bibles in groups of 5 with the Rector and a former rector (who was a god squad type). He stared preaching at us. I couldn't help myself and started pissing myself laughing then everyone else did. Did not go down well.... didn't go down well atall..... he knew it was me and this didn't look good laughing in his predecessor's face

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik i find it amazing how some1 can try to take out something our country was founded on.. when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom and guess what, they were Christians .. they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers... so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state, and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance... the nation was founded by people who believed in God.. suck it up

Ahh yes but if the people who founded your nation had the same idea "stick to the rules they are always right... change is bad" then your country wouldn't be the place it is now would it?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ That's the closest I had seen to an endorsement of religion in my entire public school career, so I don�t know how that would compare to Europe, Mexico, or Canada for example.

Seems like you were less exposed to religion than I was at school then. At kindergarten here we were forced (yes forced - bloody Lutherans!) to say prayers pretty much before we did anything. Neither of my parents are religious, so I didn't even know what this "God" was meant to be when they asked me to lead in prayer. :-/

At primary school here they'd always let proselytisers from the local church in to speak to us. There's something very wrong about taking a couple hours out of the weekly syllabus to let idiots indoctrinate 5 and 6 year olds with their very particular fire and brimstone religion (and that's how it was - none of this liberal Christian crap - it was fear and threats all the way. One of my friends in another class was traumatised when this weird, weird woman told him that he was going to burn in hell because he didn't pray at night. His parents understandably complained though, and she never came back).

When I lived in England we'd have to pray at the start and the end of every school day and sing hymns at assembly at the primary school there. Same deal as with Australia as well: they had no problem with letting protestant nut-jobs in to indoctrinate the children on school time (wonder if they'd let an atheist - or a Muslim - go in to do the same thing?). These are all state-schools I'm talking about as well, btw. So much for separation between church and state, huh?

And well, I went to an Anglican high-school so lots of hymns and prayers there as well understandably. Anglicanism is a pretty liberal facet of Christianity, so I never had any specific problems there (except when the esteemed reverend dragged me up during Religious Education class - more accurately described as Christian Apologetics class - and tried to prove that atheists don't exist after I raised an objection to something he said). No-one I knew at the school was in any way religious though, so no-one took any of it particularly seriously.

So from the sounds of it, there's a bigger overlap between religion and state schools in Australia and England (from my experiences anyway) than Texas from what you've described. That's a little disconcerting... :-/

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers...

No they didn't. Not only were most of the founding fathers indifferent to religion (lots of deists, pantheists and agnostics in there - true products of the emerging European enlightenment) some - like Thomas Jefferson - were openly hostile to Christian beliefs. Hence, the doctrine of separating church and state.

quote:

so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state, and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance...

Er, the pledge has already been modified - by the McCarthyites in the 50s. They were the ones that added words "under God" to the pledge to distinguish the US from the godless commies. Striking "under God" from the pledge would just be restoring it to its original form.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon.. is like changing the whole white house structure, because it does not fit modern times structures.. and it bothers the people that walk outside to watch such an old greek like structure..... I know the analogy is not quite the same, really.. but I hope you people know where Im getting at. Jeezz.. leave history and those customs by itself, just respect it, learn and live to respect... you can say the whole pledge and not say the word god.. how can it bother you much?

Why change customs like Monarchy, then? If a custom is beneficial, then it could be justified with something a little stronger than "why change [it]," and if it isn't beneficial then it is useless and ought to be replaced.

Break, break the old tablets!

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik i find it amazing how some1 can try to take out something our country was founded on..

Looks like someone doesn't know their history. Under god was added in the 1950s, the original pledge didn't have any religions references in it, period.

quote:

when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom and guess what, they were Christians .. they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers...

Yes, they believed in god, but there were numerous deists. Thomas Paine is a prime example of this, he was vehemently opposed to Christianity, hell - he even wrote a book on it.


Further to that - if you'd ever read your own constitution you'd realizer that there is strict separation of church and state enforced. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I yearn for the day when every school will coerce students into saying a pledge that affirms the non-existence of god. Government should remain neutral on all matters religious.

quote:

so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state

They're doing that because the founding fathers wrote it into the constitution.

quote:

and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance...

Once again, the original pledge did not contain 'under god'. It was added in the 1950s.

quote:

the nation was founded by people who believed in God.. suck it up

Again, utterly irrelevant. The founding fathers believed in god (although not the same gods as each other), but unfortunately for you - they realized that the government and religion should be kept strictly separate. They didn't try and push their 'god belief' onto others.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon..

Because the country wasn't built on something added in the 1950s?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Seems like you were less exposed to religion than I was at school then. At kindergarten here we were forced (yes forced - bloody Lutherans!) to say prayers pretty much before we did anything. Neither of my parents are religious, so I didn't even know what this "God" was meant to be when they asked me to lead in prayer. :-/ At primary school here they'd always let proselytisers from the local church in to speak to us. There's something very wrong about taking a couple hours out of the weekly syllabus to let idiots indoctrinate 5 and 6 year olds with their very particular fire and brimstone religion (and that's how it was - none of this liberal Christian crap - it was fear and threats all the way. One of my friends in another class was traumatised when this weird, weird woman told him that he was going to burn in hell because he didn't pray at night. His parents understandably complained though, and she never came back). When I lived in England we'd have to pray at the start and the end of every school day and sing hymns at assembly at the primary school there. Same deal as with Australia as well: they had no problem with letting protestant nut-jobs in to indoctrinate the children on school time (wonder if they'd let an atheist - or a Muslim - go in to do the same thing?). These are all state-schools I'm talking about as well, btw. So much for separation between church and state, huh? And well, I went to an Anglican high-school so lots of hymns and prayers there as well understandably. Anglicanism is a pretty liberal facet of Christianity, so I never had any specific problems there (except when the esteemed reverend dragged me up during Religious Education class - more accurately described as Christian Apologetics class - and tried to prove that atheists don't exist after I raised an objection to something he said). No-one I knew at the school was in any way religious though, so no-one took any of it particularly seriously. So from the sounds of it, there's a bigger overlap between religion and state schools in Australia and England (from my experiences anyway) than Texas from what you've described. That's a little disconcerting... :-/

Hehe, I find that rather amusing since most foreigners seem to think we are all radical Fundies or something, though Bush is trying his best to return creationism, abstinence only sex ed, forced prayer, etc. to the public schools.

The main problem with this, of course, is that not all of us share the same belief systems.


Yes, the only time I can remember that I was more or less indoctrinated by an instructor was when we were asked to pray in kindergarten. That was during the Gulf War, so it must have been around 1991.


I went to public school in a more pluralistic, open city, and I often wonder how it would have been different had I gone to public school in a smaller town.


There are Christian and other faith organizations on campus in public schools, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but students lead them and attendance is completely voluntary. This is how it should be.

I forgot to mention, after the high school graduation ceremony there was a student-led prayer service, of which the name escapes me at this time.


It's completely voluntary though, and one is not forced to attend.

Voluntary, student-led faith organizations and events are vastly superior to indoctrination by an instructor.


Religious indoctrination by public school instructors has been unconstitutional in the US since at least the 1960s, though I'm not sure about the legality of handing out Bibles on school grounds (outside the schools).

It doesn't really harm anyone, so I see no problem with it.

Overall, everything is as it should be, and as long as Bush does not appoint, and the Senate confirms, two more like-minded judges beyond the Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist minority to the SC, freedom of religion will be protected.

Thomas' dissent in the pledge case seems to indicate to me he'd be fine with individual states adopting their own state religion(s). Then again, he�s also fine with trashing the Voting Rights Act (granting people of color the right to vote), despite the fact that he grew up Black in the South during the time of Jim Crow. My father, a lawyer, calls Thomas the �first anti-Black, Black justice.�


I'd bet the farm he and Scalia will also rule that the Bush Administration has the right to lock up American citizens without right to trial and attorney in the Padilla case:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/sit...k/site/newsweek


Here is some case history for church/state separation:

quote:

"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952) Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs. 1954: The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling, Tudor v. Board of Education against the distribution of Bibles by outside groups like the Gideons. 1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. 1962: The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, disallowed a government-composed, nondenominational "Regents" prayer which was recited by students . 1963: In a number of major decisions (Murray v. Curlett; Abington Township School district v. Schempp) mandatory Bible verse recitation was ruled unconstitutional. Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional. Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state�s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment�s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985) State�s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional. Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation. Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992) Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies. Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993) City�s ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

My own experience in public school, and meeting many people with diverse beliefs, has convinced me that people like Bush who wish to tear down the wall between church/state are in the wrong.


This case was the last major church/state separation case that I remember made headlines (before the pledge case):


http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/s...choolprayer.01/

quote:

Supreme Court bars student-led prayer at high school football games By Raju Chebium CNN Interactive Correspondent June 19, 2000 Web posted at: 1:10 p.m. EST (1710 GMT) The central question was whether allowing prayer violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment," he added. The school district policy Two students and their mothers filed suit in 1995 and were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union. The students, one Mormon and one Catholic, and their mothers were not named in court papers. The 4,000-student southern Texas school district, until 1995, had a policy in which students elected student council chaplains to deliver prayers over the public address system before the start of high school football games. While the lower courts were considering the legal challenge, the school district adopted a new policy under which student-led prayer was permitted but not mandated. Students were asked to vote on whether to allow prayer and to vote again to select the person to deliver them. A lower court retooled that policy to allow only non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer. An appeals court found the modified policy constitutionally invalid. The nation's highest court agreed with the appeals court Monday. Details of the majority ruling The high court rejected the argument that the pre-football prayer was an example of "private speech" because the students, not school officials, decided the prayer matter. But Stevens wrote that the students were able to deliver only religious messages deemed "appropriate" by the school district. That meant, he wrote, "that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced. "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship," he wrote. The other justices in the majority were Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The dissent Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing a strongly-worded dissenting opinion, accused the majority of "distorting existing precedent" to rule that the policy violated the First Amendment, which gives the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court says prayer led by student representatives during public school events are "not properly characterized as private speech" "But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause," Rehnquist wrote, noting that the nation's first president, George Washington, himself had called for a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer." Rehnquist also pointed out that the Santa Fe policy allowed students to discuss purely secular topics, not just prayer, though he acknowledged prayer would be the topic of choice nine times out of 10. He said the choice of topics and speakers was to be made by the students, not the school. "The students may have chosen a speaker according to wholly secular criteria -- like good public speaking skills or social popularity -- and the student speaker may have chosen, on her own accord, to deliver a religious message. Such an application of the policy would likely pass constitutional muster," he wrote. Joining him in the dissent were justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the school district were not immediately available for comment on the decision. Previous prayer cases School prayer opponents protest pre-game prayer in Texas The current Supreme Court has been steadfast in its objection to large prayer ceremonies in government-funded schools. In the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case, the court said no to a rabbi's prayer at a public middle school. The next year, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District case, in which the lower court allowed "non-sectarian, non-proselytizing, student-initiated, student-led" prayers at graduation ceremonies. The Santa Fe case was filed to challenge both the Supreme Court's decision to reject the Jones case and to void the Santa Fe district's policy. In 1963, the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools. The case is Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe.

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state,

^^
How do you reconcile these two statements in the same breath?

That they knew the perils of religious persecution is the reason why you and I are free to believe as we wish in this country.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about that, but clearly our president doesn't understand it either.





http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/d...ry/bar1796t.htm

quote:

The Barbary Treaties : Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl...er_tripoli.html

quote:

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Looks like someone doesn't know their history. Under god was added in the 1950s, the original pledge didn't have any religions references in it, period. Yes, they believed in god, but there were numerous deists. Thomas Paine is a prime example of this, he was vehemently opposed to Christianity, hell - he even wrote a book on it. Further to that - if you'd ever read your own constitution you'd realizer that there is strict separation of church and state enforced. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I yearn for the day when every school will coerce students into saying a pledge that affirms the non-existence of god. Government should remain neutral on all matters religious. They're doing that because the founding fathers wrote it into the constitution. Once again, the original pledge did not contain 'under god'. It was added in the 1950s. Again, utterly irrelevant. The founding fathers believed in god (although not the same gods as each other), but unfortunately for you - they realized that the government and religion should be kept strictly separate. They didn't try and push their 'god belief' onto others.

I think it's more accurate to say that our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as sanctioning church/state separation, but the court has used the guidance and wisdom of the Founding Fathers as their methodology.




http://atheism.about.com/library/FA...sep_danbury.htm

quote:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Jefferson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...004Jun14_2.html

quote:

Ruling in favor of Newdow last year, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cited a 1992 decision by the Supreme Court that said a rabbi's nonsectarian prayer at a public high school graduation violated the First Amendment clause that prohibits the establishment of an official religion -- because nonreligious students might feel psychological pressure to join in, even if not formally required to do so. Though public school students have long been free to remain silent during the recitation of the pledge, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that since Newdow's daughter in elementary school had to choose between saying "under God" or risking ostracism by skipping it, his right as a father to instruct her in religious matters without state interference was violated. Even some conservative legal analysts called the 9th Circuit's ruling a plausible reading of the Supreme Court's precedents. Indeed, in his concurring opinion yesterday, Thomas said that the 1992 ruling "would require us to strike down the pledge policy," which is why, he said, the 1992 precedent should be overruled. Still, the 9th Circuit decision sparked a political uproar, as the ruling was denounced by the president and nearly the entire membership of Congress. All 50 state governments, the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association also weighed in at the court in favor of the existing pledge. An April Gallup poll showed that 91 percent of the public wanted the pledge to remain as it is, while 8 percent wanted to see "under God" expunged. Thus, the court was under intense pressure to uphold the pledge, but a satisfactory legal argument for doing so was not readily apparent. Lawyers for both the Elk Grove schools and the Bush administration urged the justices to find that "under God" was not a religious affirmation, but, as the administration's brief put it, a simple acknowledgement of "the role that faith in God has played in the formation, political foundation, and continuing development of this Country." But in the end, only Rehnquist and O'Connor adopted such an interpretation, in concurring opinions that referred to Newdow's suit as a bid for a "heckler's veto" over a widely accepted patriotic exercise.

It's funny that in America many people would like to see strong integration between the state and fundamentalist branches of the church, yet the state and religion are more seperated than they are in Europe where noone really cares about religion anymore.

Wait a tick - our country was founded in the 1950's? It was founded in rebellion against godless Communism?

Goodness, we all learn something new every day, don't we?

This is a whole lot of garbage as far as I am concerned, I am not the most religous person heck certainly not a strict follower of religion but c'mon already. If people don't want to say under God then simply don't say it in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance and move on with life. People stil have the choice to do so in the U.S. Funny that this guy is so concerned about his daughter reciting the pledge of allegiance, when he is not even deemed a fit parent maybe he should focus on other aspects of his daughter's daily welfare than worrying about such a pathetic issue. What has the world come to when you can't say "under God" in the pledge" because it offends a few, my goodness.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This is a whole lot of garbage as far as I am concerned, I am not the most religous person heck certainly not a strict follower of religion but c'mon already. If people don't want to say under God then simply don't say it in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance and move on with life. People stil have the choice to do so in the U.S. Funny that this guy is so concerned about his daughter reciting the pledge of allegiance, when he is not even deemed a fit parent maybe he should focus on other aspects of his daughter's daily welfare than worrying about such a pathetic issue. What has the world come to when you can't say "under God" in the pledge" because it offends a few, my goodness.

See, another example of "too much freedom". True, so many have time to sue for any reasons. I.E. woman who tried to sue Janet Jackson and NBC for the boob episode.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 It's funny that in America many people would like to see strong integration between the state and fundamentalist branches of the church, yet the state and religion are more seperated than they are in Europe where noone really cares about religion anymore.

I guess the founding fathers had remarkable foresight to predict that when the US opened its borders to immigrants we'd get a lot of regligious nuts that the rest of the world couldn't stand.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan If people don't want to say under God then simply don't say it in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance and move on with life. People stil have the choice to do so in the U.S.

This misses the point. There should be NO reference to God in a governmentally-funded institution. For those who do not adhere to a belief in a God, this is a slap in the face every time the reference is mentioned.

Whether you like it or not, the minority belief is just as equally protected as the majority by the Constitution.

quote:

Funny that this guy is so concerned about his daughter reciting the pledge of allegiance, when he is not even deemed a fit parent maybe he should focus on other aspects of his daughter's daily welfare than worrying about such a pathetic issue.

While I might agree with your opinion here on his parenting skills, the man still has a legitimate gripe about the God reference being unconstitutional.

quote:

What has the world come to when you can't say "under God" in the pledge" because it offends a few, my goodness.

A reasonable, rational world that gives a voice to the minority as well as the majority? Those atheists and agnostics may only be a few % of the population in our country, but we are still referring to millions of individuals who wish not to have our government be involved with any religious indoctrination, esp. when we consider the origins of the insertion of the phrase in the 1950�s.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I guess the founding fathers had remarkable foresight to predict that when the US opened its borders to immigrants we'd get a lot of regligious nuts that the rest of the world couldn't stand.

Haha, too funny Occ, I did see a guy on the other day. He was Muslim and lived in Deerborn Michigan, city with the largest concentration of Muslims in America for those who don't know. He stated that I pray for America and hope that one day all Americans become Muslims, ah okay sure. Islam is a wonderful religion but no thank you, this isn't Saudi Arabia at least people of all faiths can come here and have freedoms because we aren't a state run by religion.

Is it true by the way that Jews cannot enter Saudi Arabia, read it on a BBC website post and couldn't believe it is true, I know that non Muslims can't enter Mecca but barring people from entering the nation based on their religion, just gotta shake my head. Not that too many Jews would want to or be smart to go their anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by DjSway See, another example of "too much freedom". True, so many have time to sue for any reasons. I.E. woman who tried to sue Janet Jackson and NBC for the boob episode.

And our Constitution in essence allows our society to depict what is deemed acceptible or not. With freedom and liberty, we have to accept the futility of some ridiculous situations, but as a whole we do quite well determining what is and what is not "correct". John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" depicts this very well - if you haven't had to read it as a college requirement, I would highly suggest it. It is enormously influential on our governmental laws.

There are many other countries you can live that restrict your freedom. If you, by chance, wish the U.S. to model after those given societies, by all means let's hear your case.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And our Constitution in essence allows our society to depict what is deemed acceptible or not. With freedom and liberty, we have to accept the futility of some ridiculous situations, but as a whole we do quite well determining what is and what is not "correct". John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" depicts this very well - if you haven't had to read it as a college requirement, I would highly suggest it. It is enormously influential on our governmental laws. There are many other countries you can live that restrict your freedom. If you, by chance, wish the U.S. to model after those given societies, by all means let's hear your case.

I sure will! ahum....

MEN being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

For, when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being one body, must move one way, it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority, or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that in assemblies empowered to act by positive laws where no number is set by that positive law which empowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines as having, by the law of Nature and reason, the power of the whole.

And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact if he be left free and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of Nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? What new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society than he himself thought fit and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of Nature, who may submit himself and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.

For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual, nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole, which, considering the infirmities of health and avocations of business, which in a number though much less than that of a commonwealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly; and the variety of opinions and contrariety of interests which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, it is next impossible ever to be had. And, therefore, if coming into society be upon such terms, it will be only like Cato's coming into the theatre, tantum ut exiret. Such a constitution as this would make the mighty leviathan of a shorter duration than the feeblest creatures, and not let it outlast the day it was born in, which cannot be supposed till we can think that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved. For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again.

Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.

To this I find two objections made: 1. That there are no instances to be found in story of a company of men, independent and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government. 2. It is impossible of right that men should do so, because all men, being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are not at liberty to begin a new one.

To the first there is this to answer: That it is not at all to be wondered that history gives us but a very little account of men that lived together in the state of Nature. The inconveniencies of that condition, and the love and want of society, no sooner brought any number of them together, but they presently united and in corporated if they designed to continue together. And if we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of Nature, because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them till they were men and embodied in armies. Government is everywhere antecedent to records, and letters seldom come in amongst a people till a long continuation of civil society has, by other more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty. And then they begin to look after the history of their founders, and search into their original when they have outlived the memory of it. For it is with commonwealths as with particular persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies; and if they know anything of it, they are beholding for it to the accidental records that others have kept of it. And those that we have of the beginning of any polities in the world, excepting that of the Jews, where God Himself immediately interposed, and which favours not at all paternal dominion, are all either plain instances of such a beginning as I have mentioned, or at least have manifest footsteps of it.

He must show a strange inclination to deny evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis, who will not allow that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting together of several men, free and independent one of another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection. And if Josephus Acosta's word may be taken, he tells us that in many parts of America there was no government at all. "There are great and apparent conjectures," says he, "that these men [speaking of those of Peru] for a long time had neither kings nor commonwealths, but lived in troops, as they do this day in Florida- the Cheriquanas, those of Brazil, and many other nations, which have no certain kings, but, as occasion is offered in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please" (lib. i. cap. 25). If it be said, that every man there was born subject to his father, or the head of his family. that the subjection due from a child to a father took away not his freedom of uniting into what political society he thought fit, has been already proved; but be that as it will, these men, it is evident, were actually free; and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any of them, they themselves claimed it not; but, by consent, were all equal, till, by the same consent, they set rulers over themselves. So that their politic societies all began from a voluntary union, and the mutual agreement of men freely acting in the choice of their governors and forms of government.

And I hope those who went away from Sparta, with Palantus, mentioned by Justin, will be allowed to have been freemen independent one of another, and to have set up a government over themselves by their own consent. Thus I have given several examples out of history of people, free and in the state of Nature, that, being met together, incorporated and began a commonwealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that government were not nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for paternal empire were better let it alone than urge it against natural liberty; for if they can give so many instances out of history of governments begun upon paternal right, I think (though at least an argument from what has been to what should of right be of no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But if I might advise them in the case, they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments as they have begun de facto, lest they should find at the foundation of most of them something very little favourable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for.

But, to conclude: reason being plain on our side that men are naturally free; and the examples of history showing that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people; there can be little room for doubt, either where the right is, or what has been the opinion or practice of mankind about the first erecting of governments.

I will not deny that if we look back, as far as history will direct us, towards the original of commonwealths, we shall generally find them under the government and administration of one man. And I am also apt to believe that where a family was numerous enough to subsist by itself, and continued entire together, without mixing with others, as it often happens, where there is much land and few people, the government commonly began in the father. For the father having, by the law of Nature, the same power, with every man else, to punish, as he thought fit, any offences against that law, might thereby punish his transgressing children, even when they were men, and out of their pupilage; and they were very likely to submit to his punishment, and all join with him against the offender in their turns, giving him thereby power to execute his sentence against any transgression, and so, in effect, make him the law-maker and governor over all that remained in conjunction with his family. He was fittest to be trusted; paternal affection secured their property and interest under his care, and the custom of obeying him in their childhood made it easier to submit to him rather than any other. If, therefore, they must have one to rule them, as government is hardly to be avoided amongst men that live together, who so likely to be the man as he that was their common father, unless negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind or body, made him unfit for it? But when either the father died. and left his next heir- for want of age, wisdom, courage, or any other qualities- less fit for rule, or where several families met and consented to continue together, there, it is not to be doubted, but they used their natural freedom to set up him whom they judged the ablest and most likely to rule well over them. Conformable hereunto we find the people of America, who- living out of the reach of the conquering swords and spreading domination of the two great empires of Peru and Mexico- enjoyed their own natural freedom, though, caeteris paribus, they commonly prefer the heir of their deceased king; yet, if they find him any way weak or incapable, they pass him by, and set up the stoutest and bravest man for their ruler.

Thus, though looking back as far as records give us any account of peopling the world, and the history of nations, we commonly find the government to be in one hand, yet it destroys not that which I affirm- viz., that the beginning of politic society depends upon the consent of the individuals to join into and make one society, who, when they are thus incorporated, might set up what form of government they thought fit. But this having given occasion to men to mistake and think that, by Nature, government was monarchical, and belonged to the father, it may not be amiss here to consider why people, in the beginning, generally pitched upon this form, which, though perhaps the father's pre-eminency might, in the first institution of some commonwealths, give a rise to and place in the beginning the power in one hand, yet it is plain that the reason that continued the form of government in a single person was not any regard or respect to paternal authority, since all petty monarchies- that is, almost all monarchies, near their original, have been commonly, at least upon occasion, elective.

First, then, in the beginning of things, the father's government of the childhood of those sprung from him having accustomed them to the rule of one man, and taught them that where it was exercised with care and skill, with affection and love to those under it, it was sufficient to procure and preserve men (all the political happiness they sought for in society), it was no wonder that they should pitch upon and naturally run into that form of government which, from their infancy, they had been all accustomed to, and which, by experience, they had found both easy and safe. To which if we add, that monarchy being simple and most obvious to men, whom neither experience had instructed in forms of government, nor the ambition or insolence of empire had taught to beware of the encroachments of prerogative or the inconveniencies of absolute power, which monarchy, in succession, was apt to lay claim to and bring upon them; it was not at all strange that they should not much trouble themselves to think of methods of restraining any exorbitances of those to whom they had given the authority over them, and of balancing the power of government by placing several parts of it in different hands. They had neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions or way of living, which afforded little matter for covetousness or ambition, give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it; and, therefore, it is no wonder they put themselves into such a frame of government as was not only, as I said, most obvious and simple, but also best suited to their present state and condition, which stood more in need of defence against foreign invasions and injuries than of multiplicity of laws where there was but very little property, and wanted not variety of rulers and abundance of officers to direct and look after their execution where there were but few trespassers and few offenders. Since, then, those who liked one another so well as to join into society cannot but be supposed to have some acquaintance and friendship together, and some trust one in another, they could not but have greater apprehensions of others than of one another; and, therefore, their first care and thought cannot but be supposed to be, how to secure themselves against foreign force. It was natural for them to put themselves under a frame of government which might best serve to that end, and choose the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in their wars and lead them out against their enemies, and in this chiefly be their ruler.

Thus we see that the kings of the Indians, in America, which is still a pattern of the first ages in Asia and Europe, whilst the inhabitants were too few for the country, and want of people and money gave men no temptation to enlarge their possessions of land or contest for wider extent of ground, are little more than generals of their armies; and though they command absolutely in war, yet at home, and in time of peace, they exercise very little dominion, and have but a very moderate sovereignty, the resolutions of peace and war being ordinarily either in the people or in a council, though the war itself, which admits not of pluralities of governors, naturally evolves the command into the king's sole authority.

And thus, in Israel itself, the chief business of their judges and first kings seems to have been to be captains in war and leaders of their armies, which (besides what is signified by "going out and in before the people," which was, to march forth to war and home again at the heads of their forces) appears plainly in the story of Jephtha. The Ammonites making war upon Israel, the Gileadites, in fear, send to Jephtha, a bastard of their family, whom they had cast off, and article with him, if he will assist them against the Ammonites, to make him their ruler, which they do in these words: "And the people made him head and captain over them" (Judges 11. 11), which was, as it seems, all one as to be judge. "And he judged Israel" (Judges 12. 7)- that is, was their captain-general- "six years." So when Jotham upbraids the Shechemites with the obligation they had to Gideon, who had been their judge and ruler, he tells them: "He fought for you, and adventured his life for, and delivered you out of the hands of Midian" (Judges 9. 17). Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as a general, and, indeed, that is all is found in his history, or in any of the rest of the judges. And Abimelech particularly is called king, though at most he was but their general. And when, being weary of the ill-conduct of Samuel's sons, the children of Israel desired a king, "like all the nations, to judge them, and to go out before them, and to fight their battles" (1 Sam. 8. 20), God, granting their desire, says to Samuel, "I will send thee a man, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hands of the Philistines" (ch. 9. 16). As if the only business of a king had been to lead out their armies and fight in their defence; and, accordingly, at his inauguration, pouring a vial of oil upon him, declares to Saul that "the Lord had anointed him to be captain over his inheritance" (ch. 10. 1). And therefore those who, after Saul being solemnly chosen and saluted king by the tribes at Mispah, were unwilling to have him their king, make no other objection but this, "How shall this man save us?" (ch. 10. 27), as if they should have said: "This man is unfit to be our king, not having skill and conduct enough in war to be able to defend us." And when God resolved to transfer the government to David, it is in these words: "But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over His people" (ch. 13. 14.). As if the whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general; and therefore the tribes who had stuck to Saul's family, and opposed David's reign, when they came to Hebron with terms of submission to him, they tell him, amongst other arguments, they had to submit to him as to their king, that he was, in effect, their king in Saul's time, and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their king now. "Also," say they, "in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the Lord said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel."

Thus, whether a family, by degrees, grew up into a commonwealth, and the fatherly authority being continued on to the elder son, every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it, and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one, every one acquiesced till time seemed to have confirmed it and settled a right of succession by prescription; or whether several families, or the descendants of several families, whom chance, neighbourhood, or business brought together, united into society; the need of a general whose conduct might defend them against their enemies in war, and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity of that poor but virtuous age, such as are almost all those which begin governments that ever come to last in the world, gave men one of another, made the first beginners of commonwealths generally put the rule into one man's hand, without any other express limitation or restraint but what the nature of the thing and the end of government required. It was given them for the public good and safety, and to those ends, in the infancies of commonwealths, they commonly used it; and unless they had done so, young societies could not have subsisted. Without such nursing fathers, without this care of the governors, all governments would have sunk under the weakness and infirmities of their infancy, the prince and the people had soon perished together.

Amen!

quote:

Originally posted by DjSway I sure will! ahum.... MEN being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest. For, when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being one body, must move one way, it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority, or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that in assemblies empowered to act by positive laws where no number is set by that positive law which empowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines as having, by the law of Nature and reason, the power of the whole. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact if he be left free and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of Nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? What new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society than he himself thought fit and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of Nature, who may submit himself and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit. For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual, nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole, which, considering the infirmities of health and avocations of business, which in a number though much less than that of a commonwealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly; and the variety of opinions and contrariety of interests which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, it is next impossible ever to be had. And, therefore, if coming into society be upon such terms, it will be only like Cato's coming into the theatre, tantum ut exiret. Such a constitution as this would make the mighty leviathan of a shorter duration than the feeblest creatures, and not let it outlast the day it was born in, which cannot be supposed till we can think that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved. For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again. Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. To this I find two objections made: 1. That there are no instances to be found in story of a company of men, independent and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government. 2. It is impossible of right that men should do so, because all men, being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are not at liberty to begin a new one. To the first there is this to answer: That it is not at all to be wondered that history gives us but a very little account of men that lived together in the state of Nature. The inconveniencies of that condition, and the love and want of society, no sooner brought any number of them together, but they presently united and in corporated if they designed to continue together. And if we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of Nature, because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them till they were men and embodied in armies. Government is everywhere antecedent to records, and letters seldom come in amongst a people till a long continuation of civil society has, by other more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty. And then they begin to look after the history of their founders, and search into their original when they have outlived the memory of it. For it is with commonwealths as with particular persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies; and if they know anything of it, they are beholding for it to the accidental records that others have kept of it. And those that we have of the beginning of any polities in the world, excepting that of the Jews, where God Himself immediately interposed, and which favours not at all paternal dominion, are all either plain instances of such a beginning as I have mentioned, or at least have manifest footsteps of it. He must show a strange inclination to deny evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis, who will not allow that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting together of several men, free and independent one of another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection. And if Josephus Acosta's word may be taken, he tells us that in many parts of America there was no government at all. "There are great and apparent conjectures," says he, "that these men [speaking of those of Peru] for a long time had neither kings nor commonwealths, but lived in troops, as they do this day in Florida- the Cheriquanas, those of Brazil, and many other nations, which have no certain kings, but, as occasion is offered in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please" (lib. i. cap. 25). If it be said, that every man there was born subject to his father, or the head of his family. that the subjection due from a child to a father took away not his freedom of uniting into what political society he thought fit, has been already proved; but be that as it will, these men, it is evident, were actually free; and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any of them, they themselves claimed it not; but, by consent, were all equal, till, by the same consent, they set rulers over themselves. So that their politic societies all began from a voluntary union, and the mutual agreement of men freely acting in the choice of their governors and forms of government. And I hope those who went away from Sparta, with Palantus, mentioned by Justin, will be allowed to have been freemen independent one of another, and to have set up a government over themselves by their own consent. Thus I have given several examples out of history of people, free and in the state of Nature, that, being met together, incorporated and began a commonwealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that government were not nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for paternal empire were better let it alone than urge it against natural liberty; for if they can give so many instances out of history of governments begun upon paternal right, I think (though at least an argument from what has been to what should of right be of no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But if I might advise them in the case, they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments as they have begun de facto, lest they should find at the foundation of most of them something very little favourable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for. But, to conclude: reason being plain on our side that men are naturally free; and the examples of history showing that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people; there can be little room for doubt, either where the right is, or what has been the opinion or practice of mankind about the first erecting of governments. I will not deny that if we look back, as far as history will direct us, towards the original of commonwealths, we shall generally find them under the government and administration of one man. And I am also apt to believe that where a family was numerous enough to subsist by itself, and continued entire together, without mixing with others, as it often happens, where there is much land and few people, the government commonly began in the father. For the father having, by the law of Nature, the same power, with every man else, to punish, as he thought fit, any offences against that law, might thereby punish his transgressing children, even when they were men, and out of their pupilage; and they were very likely to submit to his punishment, and all join with him against the offender in their turns, giving him thereby power to execute his sentence against any transgression, and so, in effect, make him the law-maker and governor over all that remained in conjunction with his family. He was fittest to be trusted; paternal affection secured their property and interest under his care, and the custom of obeying him in their childhood made it easier to submit to him rather than any other. If, therefore, they must have one to rule them, as government is hardly to be avoided amongst men that live together, who so likely to be the man as he that was their common father, unless negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind or body, made him unfit for it? But when either the father died. and left his next heir- for want of age, wisdom, courage, or any other qualities- less fit for rule, or where several families met and consented to continue together, there, it is not to be doubted, but they used their natural freedom to set up him whom they judged the ablest and most likely to rule well over them. Conformable hereunto we find the people of America, who- living out of the reach of the conquering swords and spreading domination of the two great empires of Peru and Mexico- enjoyed their own natural freedom, though, caeteris paribus, they commonly prefer the heir of their deceased king; yet, if they find him any way weak or incapable, they pass him by, and set up the stoutest and bravest man for their ruler. Thus, though looking back as far as records give us any account of peopling the world, and the history of nations, we commonly find the government to be in one hand, yet it destroys not that which I affirm- viz., that the beginning of politic society depends upon the consent of the individuals to join into and make one society, who, when they are thus incorporated, might set up what form of government they thought fit. But this having given occasion to men to mistake and think that, by Nature, government was monarchical, and belonged to the father, it may not be amiss here to consider why people, in the beginning, generally pitched upon this form, which, though perhaps the father's pre-eminency might, in the first institution of some commonwealths, give a rise to and place in the beginning the power in one hand, yet it is plain that the reason that continued the form of government in a single person was not any regard or respect to paternal authority, since all petty monarchies- that is, almost all monarchies, near their original, have been commonly, at least upon occasion, elective. First, then, in the beginning of things, the father's government of the childhood of those sprung from him having accustomed them to the rule of one man, and taught them that where it was exercised with care and skill, with affection and love to those under it, it was sufficient to procure and preserve men (all the political happiness they sought for in society), it was no wonder that they should pitch upon and naturally run into that form of government which, from their infancy, they had been all accustomed to, and which, by experience, they had found both easy and safe. To which if we add, that monarchy being simple and most obvious to men, whom neither experience had instructed in forms of government, nor the ambition or insolence of empire had taught to beware of the encroachments of prerogative or the inconveniencies of absolute power, which monarchy, in succession, was apt to lay claim to and bring upon them; it was not at all strange that they should not much trouble themselves to think of methods of restraining any exorbitances of those to whom they had given the authority over them, and of balancing the power of government by placing several parts of it in different hands. They had neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions or way of living, which afforded little matter for covetousness or ambition, give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it; and, therefore, it is no wonder they put themselves into such a frame of government as was not only, as I said, most obvious and simple, but also best suited to their present state and condition, which stood more in need of defence against foreign invasions and injuries than of multiplicity of laws where there was but very little property, and wanted not variety of rulers and abundance of officers to direct and look after their execution where there were but few trespassers and few offenders. Since, then, those who liked one another so well as to join into society cannot but be supposed to have some acquaintance and friendship together, and some trust one in another, they could not but have greater apprehensions of others than of one another; and, therefore, their first care and thought cannot but be supposed to be, how to secure themselves against foreign force. It was natural for them to put themselves under a frame of government which might best serve to that end, and choose the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in their wars and lead them out against their enemies, and in this chiefly be their ruler. Thus we see that the kings of the Indians, in America, which is still a pattern of the first ages in Asia and Europe, whilst the inhabitants were too few for the country, and want of people and money gave men no temptation to enlarge their possessions of land or contest for wider extent of ground, are little more than generals of their armies; and though they command absolutely in war, yet at home, and in time of peace, they exercise very little dominion, and have but a very moderate sovereignty, the resolutions of peace and war being ordinarily either in the people or in a council, though the war itself, which admits not of pluralities of governors, naturally evolves the command into the king's sole authority. And thus, in Israel itself, the chief business of their judges and first kings seems to have been to be captains in war and leaders of their armies, which (besides what is signified by "going out and in before the people," which was, to march forth to war and home again at the heads of their forces) appears plainly in the story of Jephtha. The Ammonites making war upon Israel, the Gileadites, in fear, send to Jephtha, a bastard of their family, whom they had cast off, and article with him, if he will assist them against the Ammonites, to make him their ruler, which they do in these words: "And the people made him head and captain over them" (Judges 11. 11), which was, as it seems, all one as to be judge. "And he judged Israel" (Judges 12. 7)- that is, was their captain-general- "six years." So when Jotham upbraids the Shechemites with the obligation they had to Gideon, who had been their judge and ruler, he tells them: "He fought for you, and adventured his life for, and delivered you out of the hands of Midian" (Judges 9. 17). Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as a general, and, indeed, that is all is found in his history, or in any of the rest of the judges. And Abimelech particularly is called king, though at most he was but their general. And when, being weary of the ill-conduct of Samuel's sons, the children of Israel desired a king, "like all the nations, to judge them, and to go out before them, and to fight their battles" (1 Sam. 8. 20), God, granting their desire, says to Samuel, "I will send thee a man, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hands of the Philistines" (ch. 9. 16). As if the only business of a king had been to lead out their armies and fight in their defence; and, accordingly, at his inauguration, pouring a vial of oil upon him, declares to Saul that "the Lord had anointed him to be captain over his inheritance" (ch. 10. 1). And therefore those who, after Saul being solemnly chosen and saluted king by the tribes at Mispah, were unwilling to have him their king, make no other objection but this, "How shall this man save us?" (ch. 10. 27), as if they should have said: "This man is unfit to be our king, not having skill and conduct enough in war to be able to defend us." And when God resolved to transfer the government to David, it is in these words: "But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over His people" (ch. 13. 14.). As if the whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general; and therefore the tribes who had stuck to Saul's family, and opposed David's reign, when they came to Hebron with terms of submission to him, they tell him, amongst other arguments, they had to submit to him as to their king, that he was, in effect, their king in Saul's time, and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their king now. "Also," say they, "in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the Lord said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel." Thus, whether a family, by degrees, grew up into a commonwealth, and the fatherly authority being continued on to the elder son, every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it, and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one, every one acquiesced till time seemed to have confirmed it and settled a right of succession by prescription; or whether several families, or the descendants of several families, whom chance, neighbourhood, or business brought together, united into society; the need of a general whose conduct might defend them against their enemies in war, and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity of that poor but virtuous age, such as are almost all those which begin governments that ever come to last in the world, gave men one of another, made the first beginners of commonwealths generally put the rule into one man's hand, without any other express limitation or restraint but what the nature of the thing and the end of government required. It was given them for the public good and safety, and to those ends, in the infancies of commonwealths, they commonly used it; and unless they had done so, young societies could not have subsisted. Without such nursing fathers, without this care of the governors, all governments would have sunk under the weakness and infirmities of their infancy, the prince and the people had soon perished together. Amen!

Rather than merely copy/pasting Chap.7 from Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which certainly has an influence on our Constitution as well, could you rather present your own argument in your own words? Specifically, why would you want to limit our current statute of freedom and liberties?

heh heh, well to tell you the truth I'm not sure. I may say too much freedom can be bad, but it is still a great country we live in. One example is, even though they are protected under our freedom of speech,is the KKK. Not something we support or want to see but they exist and have the right to march and do many pretty things they do.
Does this type of freedom apply to these particular groups in other countries?

quote:

Originally posted by DjSway heh heh, well to tell you the truth I'm not sure. I may say too much freedom can be bad, but it is still a great country we live in. One example is, even though they are protected under our freedom of speech,is the KKK. Not something we support or want to see but they exist and have the right to march and do many pretty things they do. Does this type of freedom apply to these particular groups in other countries?

But taken as a whole, how does society judge the KKK? Pretty damn despicable, right? And that is precisely my point - the freedom and liberty to do something stupid, albeit lawful, is subject to public scrutiny and ridicule.

IOW, I believe our society, for the most part, judges pretty well what is and what is not considered "correct" behavior, even if that ridiculous behavior is lawful. Hence our system works very well, and shows the genious of our Constitutional forefathers.

So in essence, the freedom you have to voice your opinion about your currently elected leaders, and more importantly to vote for your elected leaders, must be the exact same freedom to allow those idiots to put pillow cases on their heads and yell "White Power!" on the State Capital's steps. We simply cannot have one without the other, at least I know of no logical or ethical way to have one without the other. But at the same time, we must allow society to correctly scrutinize what is appropriate behavior, even within the confines of Constitutional law.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But taken as a whole, how does society judge the KKK? Pretty damn despicable, right? And that is precisely my point - the freedom and liberty to do something stupid, albeit lawful, is subject to public scrutiny and ridicule. IOW, I believe our society, for the most part, judges pretty well what is and what is not considered "correct" behavior, even if that ridiculous behavior is lawful. Hence our system works very well, and shows the genious of our Constitutional forefathers. So in essence, the freedom you have to voice your opinion about your currently elected leaders, and more importantly to vote for your elected leaders, must be the exact same freedom to allow those idiots to put pillow cases on their heads and yell "White Power!" on the State Capital's steps. We simply cannot have one without the other, at least I know of no logical or ethical way to have one without the other. But at the same time, we must allow society to correctly scrutinize what is appropriate behavior, even within the confines of Constitutional law.

Well said, but I think that in cases of lawsuits, there should be some kind of restrictions or such. Not relating to this lawsuit but ridiculous ones like mom sues Mac Donalds for making her kids fat, or woman sues for Janet's boob.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.