Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005 (WITHDRAWN)

[Ebowed]

I oppose this and support abolishing the pledge altogether.

[Ebowed]

It's not a false thing to say, but why should you have to say it?  This Senate is amazingly anti Civil Liberties.  I expect you to introduce legislation making it a crime to deny the Holocaust any time now.

[Ebowed]

It's not a false thing to say, but why should you have to say it? This Senate is amazingly anti Civil Liberties. I expect you to introduce legislation making it a crime to deny the Holocaust any time now.

Like it or not, the pledge is a highly entrenched part of both America and, as a consequence, Atlasia, and I doubt you'll find the support here regardless of who's in the Senate to abolish the pledge entirely. Do you deny that it at least makes the pledge better to replace a statement that is hotly contested with a statement of fact?

Gabu, you're the one who's always pointing out logical fallacies in people's posts.  Now look at yourself.  The Pledge is a highly entrenched part of Atlasia, OK, so what?  Polygamy was a highly entrenched part of Mormonism until the early 1900s.  Did they sugarcoat it and let it be, or did they eventually get rid of it?

Secondly, as "Dave" equals "God" for Atlasian purposes, what exactly are you replacing?  A word that means the same thing?  See, you think it's not a hotly contested fact.  Well I say God exists, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.  Yet you're trying to take that belief of mine out of the Pledge to please those who do not believe in God.  So if someone says "Dave" doesn't exist, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, why is his viewpoint harrassed by this new Pledge?

[Ebowed]

1.) If you can't remove it, don't change it then.  This new version will be harder to abolish in the long run.

2.) You're missing my point.  Yes, it is not hotly contested that Dave exists.  But someone out there will disagree.  Why should his viewpoint be harrassed by the country's official Pledge of Allegiance?

[Ebowed]

Excellent to hear.

[Ebowed]

The only main reason I see the honorable Senators who wish to keep the Pledge at all (with either God or Dave) is tradition.  We've had the Pledge for a long time, so they say, why get rid of it?  Here's why: it is futile for the government to legislate patriotism.  Let us compare this to what is occuring in American politics with the flag burning amendment.  The honorable congressmen who oppose that bill are shunned by their peers in Congress and the media as unpatriotic.  Yet, the only time we really have problems with the American flag being burnt is when Congress tries to restrict freedom of expression with that amendment.  To all social conservatives, I beg you to consider the following: extreme authoritarianism does not keep us safe; it leads to rebellion.  By legislating patriotism, you are telling your citizens what they can and cannot think.  Is this not a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion?  What do you say to your constituents in your home region or district, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to pledge allegiance to any government, country, or flag?

To Senators MHS2002, King, and Colin Wixted, who appear to be undecided on the matter: is it really worth it to change the Pledge?  Why not abolish it altogether?  This may seem like a minute issue when compared to the war on terror, the economic crisis, and the problems with forum activity.  But I say, no issue of civil liberties is too small.  No right should be taken for granted.  We cannot attempt to end the war on terror when we defeat the purpose.  We fight terrorism to protect our rights and liberty.  Any Senator who believes in protecting our liberties will vote against the amendment to alter the wording of the Pledge, and will vote in favor of the amendment that will abolish it.

[Ebowed]

I encourage the undecided Senators to vote against abolishing the pledge. If you must at least vote to change it instead of abolishing it but I still encourage all Senators to vote to keep the pledge the way it is!

Why do you think the government should legislate and regulate patriotism?  Specifically: what purpose does the Pledge serve?

[Ebowed]

It's to try to give one, concrete way to express patriotism.

Why is it the responsibility of the government to define to its citizens how to be patriotic?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government can also try to legislate the legality of abortion and if the people like it they'll stick with it.  Does that make it right?  Secondly, abolishing the pledge does not take away any rights from you; it only gives you more rights.  With the pledge abolished, you are able to define patriotism as you please.

It's to try and give one way but it's not trying to make it the only way. If they did try to make the pledge the only way I'd be against it to but they're not so there is no logical reason to abolish or change it based on this.

It is the country's official pledge of allegiance.  It is blatantly legislated patriotism.  And even if it were not the only way to express patriotism, why is the government supposed to define patriotism for us?  Are you implying that your constituents are not intelligent to express their patriotism on their own, without the help of the government?  I'm sure that the Mideast region will be shocked to hear that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Free speech is protected by the abolition, not the protection, of the pledge.  The government having an official pledge that legislates nationalism and patriotism, regardless of whether or not it is mandatory, is what it is: legislating patriotism.

[Ebowed]

What do you say to your constituents in your home region or district, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who, because of their religious beliefs, refuse to pledge allegiance to any government, country, or flag?

Jehovah's Witnesses are just lunatics. Fortunately for all of us, they don't vote.

Of course they're lunatics-- but they still have rights.

[Ebowed]

An interesting sidenote:
I would like to ask which clause of the Atlasian Constitution authorizes the Senate to legislate patriotism in the first place.

We kept the pledge after writing the original constitution and then after this one. It was before our constitution and we kept it. If it was abolished then we couldn't bring it back but until then.......

So basically, it's unconstitutional, but you want us to keep it anyway?

[Ebowed]

Well, it'd be nice to stall this thing as long as possible so District 4 has representation when this comes to a vote.