Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chengrob

Pledge of Allegiance Under Attack

Recommended Posts

OK, here's the Cole's Notes argument:

 

English has some leftover rules based upon misunderstood gender distinctions which no longer apply to the language, and which have never had any political bearing anyway.

 

Most English literature prior to 1970 was written by or about men.

 

Thus, the cowardly, cynical and mistaken conclusion that language is complicit as some kind of co-conspiritor in the dastardly way we treat each other sometimes.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's the Cole's Notes argument:

 

English has some leftover rules based upon misunderstood gender distinctions which no longer apply to the language, and which have never had any political bearing anyway.

 

Most English literature prior to 1970 was written by or about men.

 

Thus, the cowardly, cynical and mistaken conclusion that language is complicit as some kind of co-conspiritor in the dastardly way we treat each other sometimes.

 

I

Nonetheless it can be and sometimes is intentionally so. It is accepting that it is so as the norm that is a mistake. In general it is in fact incidental....but not always. In such cases it can be seen as complicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long before western languages became established ancient cultures had no problem with gods and gender. They had plenty of gods and plenty of goddesses. It's only fairly recently that some cultures have opted for just the one deity and so it's only recently that 'god' has been seen as male.

I say 'seen' as western pictorial art has abolished any possible ambiguity of gender by depicting the western god as a man.

 

Anybody that claims not to think of the western god as having gender, Neo for example, must have a very strong mind in order to reject the didactic nature of Renaissance art and all the pictorial art which followed, ranging from Sunday School books to Christmas cards.

 

Future cultures might see this monosexual persistence as being an inherent weakness in our spiritual culture and a prime mover in its demise. It isn't a very old culture and it has failed to learn from the demise of aggressive cultures of the past.

 

 

 

,

Edited by moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Anyway, people should excercise their right to challenge this addition to their Pledge. It implies Christianity and that's certainly what a lot of people ain't, if just this thread is anything to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Anyway, people should excercise their right to challenge this addition to their Pledge. It implies Christianity and that's certainly what a lot of people ain't, if just this thread is anything to go by.

Why did they not challenge it in the 1930's and 40's when it was added? God does not imply any religion even though one could argue those that added it were Christian. God is a generic term for a diety used by all the worlds religions. Also in the United States there is a process called majority rules. The majority of people in the United States would identify themselves as Christian. (about approx 2/3 of the population.) I guess that means they have the right to oppose that challenge also. I still do not see what the fuss is all about. In the United States you can say the pledge any way you choose. You can say it with the words Under God or not. You can even abstain from saying it at all. If the schools are trying to force your kids to say it, you have the right as a parent to force the school to remove your kids from the class while it is being recited. Just because you do not believe in God, does not give you the right to deny those that want to say it the right to do so. This is about liberty and freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know, i'm not even american and i hate those words being in the pledge.

Then why are you worried about it? It does not affect you one way or another. Us americans are not telling your country what you should have in your pledge. Frankly it is none of our bussiness what is in your pledge in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did they not challenge it in the 1930's and 40's when it was added? God does not imply any religion even though one could argue those that added it were Christian. God is a generic term for a diety used by all the worlds religions. Also in the United States there is a process called majority rules. The majority of people in the United States would identify themselves as Christian. (about approx 2/3 of the population.) I guess that means they have the right to oppose that challenge also. I still do not see what the fuss is all about. In the United States you can say the pledge any way you choose. You can say it with the words Under God or not. You can even abstain from saying it at all. If the schools are trying to force your kids to say it, you have the right as a parent to force the school to remove your kids from the class while it is being recited. Just because you do not believe in God, does not give you the right to deny those that want to say it the right to do so. This is about liberty and freedom.

So then you would be happy if they just remove "under god" from the pledge, then allow eveyone to say it how they want?. That is to say, the people who want to say "under god" can, and those who dont want to dont have to, especially since now, it's not even in it.

 

Also, a "majority rules" attitude towards this sort of thing would be unfair, you cant just dump all over a load of people and then say "oh well, majority rules!"

Edited by Typhoontom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not exactly true. Many, if not most languages (including English) have historically classified nouns by gender, which has nothing to do with sexual identification. Some nouns are masculine, some are feminine and each is inflected accordiningly, with no occult or oppresive metaphor governing their relative values. It is the deterioration of grammatical rules based on linguistic gender combined with the persistence of archaic historical documentation favouring men that has led to the shallow conceit that language itself -- English in particular -- is insidiously chauvinist.

 

I

teach me to write like that :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are you worried about it? It does not affect you one way or another. Us americans are not telling your country what you should have in your pledge. Frankly it is none of our bussiness what is in your pledge in the first place.

I care about this subject because I hate to see injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody that claims not to think of the western god as having gender, Neo for example, must have a very strong mind in order to reject the didactic nature of Renaissance art and all the pictorial art which followed, ranging from Sunday School books to Christmas cards.

I've never seen an image of God before. If I remember correctly, it is forbidden. Also, it is important to note that I don't subscribe to oine of the pre-packaged flavors of Christianity- I've created my own interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to be atheist but I gave up because they have no holidays.

 

Everybody is an atheist. Once you realize why you reject the thousands of other God's you'll realize why I reject yours.

 

I look at the bible as an amazing peice of writing. I think it is a great book to live by and the example of Jesus Christ is something we should all strive to become. Who says you can't be a Christian atheist? :shrug:

Edited by The Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't count. Thats odd. It is controlling law in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii , Idaho, Montana, Nevada , Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington unless or until over ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then you would be happy if they just remove "under god" from the pledge, then allow eveyone to say it how they want?. That is to say, the people who want to say "under god" can, and those who dont want to dont have to, especially since now, it's not even in it.

 

Also, a "majority rules" attitude towards this sort of thing would be unfair, you cant just dump all over a load of people and then say "oh well, majority rules!"

No one said life was fair, and that is how this country works for the most part like it or not. I was just stating a fact and do not necessarily believe myself that majority rules trumps what is right. As far as the official removal from the pledge of under God, I really do not see why it matters either way as long as no one is forced to say it one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/...9th_circuit.htm

 

the 9th circuit had 30% of the reviewed cases overturned. While the 9th circuit had the highest number of cases granted Cert by the Supreme Court that is likely less than 10% of the cases ruled on by the 9th circuit. So you aren't talking about a lot of cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...