Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005 (WITHDRAWN)

[Sam Spade]

I would like to propose an amendment to the legislation:

Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005

The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia and shall be replaced by the words "under Dave".  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under Dave, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

[Emsworth]

I feel, Senator, that this proposed amendment merely trivializes the issue. The question is not at all related to fantasy or forum affairs. It is rather an attempt to delve into issues of real life; bringing in fantasy politics seems to trivialize it, to ignore the fundamental question: is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge constitutional?

On those grounds, I respectfully oppose Senator Spade's amendment, and request its rejection.

[Sam Spade]

I feel, Senator, that this proposed amendment merely trivializes the issue. The question is not at all related to fantasy or forum affairs. It is rather an attempt to delve into issues of real life; fantasy affairs should not be mixed, except where absolutely necessary.

This, I feel, ignores the fundamental question: shall "under God" be part of the pledge, or shall it not?

On those grounds, I respectfully oppose Senator Spade's amendment, and request its rejection.

Considering the term "Dave" is present in our oath of office as such...

I, (underlined signator) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of (fill in) and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

I do not find the use of it in the Pledge of Allegiance trivial, but find it very respectful to the man who created this forum and who created the place where Atlasia exists.

I urge the Senate to consider this amendment with its utmost confidence and judge this to be a necessary compromise that reflects our Atlasian history and values.

Thank you.

[King]

The seperation of church and state only implies that we do not have a state religion that all must follow.  Saying "under God" does not create nor imply an organized state religion of any sort as we do not criminally enforce such a requirement which would be the compound of a theocratic state.

[Emsworth]

Considering the term "Dave" is present in our oath of office as such...

I, (underlined signator) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of (fill in) and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

I do not find the use of it in the Pledge of Allegiance trivial, but find it very respectful to the man who created this forum and who created the place where Atlasia exists.

Which argument, I feel, ignores the great object of this bill: to restore the separation of church and state (a question addressed by the platforms of various organizations) by introducing some new and non-germane point.

[Emsworth]

Saying "under God" does not create nor imply an organized state religion of any sort...

The assertion by the state that a a single God exists implies the endorsement of monotheism.

The contrary view flies in the face of numerous Supreme Court precedents, and also the views of the Framers of this clause, both real and fantasy.

[Sam Spade]

Considering the term "Dave" is present in our oath of office as such...

I, (underlined signator) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of (fill in) and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

I do not find the use of it in the Pledge of Allegiance trivial, but find it very respectful to the man who created this forum and who created the place where Atlasia exists.

Which argument, I feel, ignores the great object of this bill: to restore the separation of church and state (a question addressed by the platforms of various organizations) by introducing some new and non-germane point.

It is very much to the point, considering that this language, whenever used in jury trials, consists of "so help me God".

"Dave" is replacing "God" in this instance, as in my insertion within the Pledge of Allegiance.

[MasterJedi]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

[Emsworth]

It is very much to the point, considering that this language, whenever used in jury trials, consists of "so help me God".

The inclusion of "so help me God" in oaths is extra-constitutional. If one looks at the real-life Constitution, the phrase "under God" is found nowhere in the presidential oath: it is added only by tradition, and has been omitted by some Presidents.

In the same way, "under God" would cease to be a part of the pledge, but it (or "under Dave," or whatever else) can be added by private individuals, by tradition.

[Sam Spade]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

[King]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

What is your answer?

[Emsworth]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

Yes?

On mature reflection, it appears that the proposal seems to be a somewhat reasonable compromise. It removes a constitutional abomination ("under God") from the pledge of allegiance, and establishes in its stead something factual, not religious and unverifiable. Therefore, if the Senate would agree to pass this amendment, I will not be opposed to the ultimate passage of the bill.

But in any event, I feel that it would still be better for the phrase to be altogether excluded.

[MasterJedi]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

Yes?

On mature reflection, it appears that the proposal seems to be a reasonable compromise. It removes a constitutional abomination from the pledge of allegiance, and establishes in its stead something factual, not religious and unverifiable. Therefore, if the Senate would agree to pass this bill with this amendment, I shall support Sen. Spade's idea.

He told me in a PM and I don't know if he wants me to let it out so I won't.

But I oppose his amendment and this bill.

[Joe Republic]

I wonder how Dave feels about being deified?  I'd be a little freaked out.

[Sam Spade]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

What is your answer?

Meant to answer that. 

Honestly, I am against this legislation.  I proposed it as a compromise to those who want to get rid of God in government and those who don't.

To Joe:  Considering that Dave has power over whether this forum and Atlasia exists, I feel that we must at recognize that he is sort of a God-like figure over Atlasia.

[Joe Republic]

To Joe:  Considering that Dave has power over whether this forum and Atlasia exists, I feel that we must at recognize that he is sort of a God-like figure over Atlasia.

Perhaps so, but it doesn't change the fact that actually referring to him as an actual god is pretty stupid.

[Gabu]

To Joe:  Considering that Dave has power over whether this forum and Atlasia exists, I feel that we must at recognize that he is sort of a God-like figure over Atlasia.

Perhaps so, but it doesn't change the fact that actually referring to him as an actual god is pretty stupid.

How are we deifying him?  All we're saying is that we trust him and are under him, all of which is simply true.

Personally, I think that "under Dave" is an acceptable compromise.  It's certainly not a false thing to say.

[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.

[Gabu]

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?

[KEmperor]

I think many of us are also forgetting that we don't abide by the US Constitution here.  Therefore, the relevant clause of the Atlasian Constitution and the intent of its Framers is what really matters here.

Heh, if you don't want to go by the real life Supreme Court, you want my court to rule on this issue?  The result would be bound to piss some faction off, regardless of the decision.

[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?

[Gabu]

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?

So... we're not going to be able to remove it.  That's what I'm saying.  As I said in my other post, I'm in favor of removing it, but it's just not happening.

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.  Nobody would allow me to legislate that in the Pledge, no matter how strongly I believe it.  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?

Given that you can meet Dave Leip in real life, sit down, and have a cup of coffee with him if you like, it's quite obvious that he does indeed exist.  You can contest the idea that he exists if you like, but you're not going to find many people on your side.  If you honestly tried to assert that Dave Leip didn't exist, pretty much everyone would think that you were an idiot, or would at least find this assertion rather strange.  Therefore, it is, by definition, not hotly contested, just as it is not hotly contested that gravity exists, or that water is wet.

[King]

I propose this compromise:

The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under all YaBB Gods, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

[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?

[MHS2002]

I must say I am somewhat torn on this issue. While personally I believe in God and have no problem with the pledge, Emsworth does make some valid points. I'll try and do some personal research on the issue.