With all due respect, you haven’t been using the term “rights” (or even “liberty”)in the conventional sense, which makes it difficult to follow your reasoning. The terms are usually used in depicting civic, not religious relationships.

That’s OK with me, now that you’ve explained yourself. It does seem, however, that it leaves you a shade too complacent in the face of government power over your life.

But, hey, whatever your comfortable with!

First, let’s take the term Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Jefferson thought these inalienable rights were given by the creator (whatever that means to you,for me it’s God).

Now, lets look at Life. For me personally, I feel God has a hand in every Life ever created. You know in high school they teach biology, and about the same time the hormones start to rage. For me I enjoyed those rageing hormones, probably a little too much, for a 16-18 year old. Was I a lucky one, who didn’t become a statistic and have a kid before I graduated, or was there something else (devine intervention) helping me out..Sure some of this can be explained secularly through biology, but at the same time there are so many variables involved. Why are some people sterile for no reason,while some are too fertile? But back to life, being that I feel God chose that second or moment for my parents to engage and create me, Does the Gov’t then give me life or does God give me life? For me it’s God, The Gov’t can martyr me, lock me up forever, whatever, but they can never take the God within me away. For me that’s life.

Next, let’s take liberty. Liberty to me is knowing in my heart what is right and wrong, and knowing that if I stay on the “right” path I will always have liberty. The Gov’t can take this one away from me. But, in the bible it states “life on earth is but a blink of an eye” so again, if the gov’t decides to have its way with me, I know in my heart it’s only temporary and God will see me through the times.

Pursuit of happiness, this wraps up all three into a nutshell. Pursuit of happiness, it’s just that, pursueing what makes you happy. There are beautiful things around us on this planet that many take for granted, unfortunately. Whatever your cup of tea is, whatever your happiness is derived from, it’s up to you to find it. The gov’t, nor even a loved one can tell you what will make you happy. Once again, the Gov’t can take this one away from you, but to have solace in God is to have peace of mind. And peace of mind to me is happiness.

Now I have to explain, I have extremely different religious views than most Christians, I keep a more fundamental approach to it. A lot of the “thou shalt nots” that my church taught me when I was young have no basis to me, they are mere control apparatuses. I read the bible for inspiration and guidance, not as a truth and consequences book. I don’t feel I have the right to push my beliefs upon anyone, if one chooses to listen, then may God bless you, may God bless you even if you don’t listen, but anyway. I don’t like abortion, but what right do I have to tell you how to live your life. I don’t agree with the drug war, although I’m sure there are some sick people out there who it has helped keep from addiction. God gave us all free will, it’s up to us to use it. Beit atheist, jewish, catholic, protestant, buddhist, whatever we all have the free will to follow whatever we may choose. I’m sure this might not help you understand my statement anymore, but when dealing with spiritual ideologies, it is hard to explain with a keyboard. I get my peace of mind from God not the gov’t that is why I will only pledge allegiance to him, not an entity of worldly people or a multi-colored piece of fabric. I wish I could state it clearer, but with the time alotted me this is the best I can do. If you are still unsure of what I mean, reply to this and I will try again tomorrow. peace.

“my rights come from God, not from the constitution. My religious beliefs supercede this countries idea that a piece of hemp paper is what actually makes me a free man.”

Not being a religious person, I have never quite figured this one out. Are you talking about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or some other “rights?” And, who do you see when those rights are violated?

Absolutely.

As you’ve already alluded to, one consequence of “public” education (especially when schooling up to a cetain age is also compulsory) is that any decision regarding how public schools ought to be run becomes a political football. This is one of the more compelling arguments for a truly market-based education system…one that would be able to meet the various (and often, mutually exclusive) preferences that people have for education far better than any public system ever could.

As to all your other points…I think I can address them all by saying you have far more respect for democratic/majoritarian rule than I do. I’m concerned with individual freedom, something to which democracy is frequently a menace. That something is the opinion of a majority–to me–is simply not a compelling arguement for much of anything.

But this, like many things, is something about which reasonable people can disagree…

Cases like this, or the 10 Commandments case in Alabama, tend to bring out the worst of the conventional “right” and “left”…both groups tend to see themselves as being continually downtrodden by the other. Even as you complain about the Secularists wanting to margnilize your beliefs, many liberals percieve you (not necessarily you personally) as wanting to force your beliefs down their throats. Because we do essentially have a majoritarian system, both groups are perhaps right to fear the other.

Perhaps, then, the real solution is to figure out a way for everyone to peacefully coexist within their own spheres, without forcing their beliefs (or lack thereof) on anyone else. A market based education system, for example, would be an excellent step in that direction.

Ohh I strongly disagree. Why do you think the democrats and their minions at the NEA fight like cornered animals every time the issue of school vouchers is raised? They want their federally enforced monopoly protected from â??inferiorâ? self-serving parents and children.

Give people the option of drastically reduced property taxes and sending their children to the private school of their choice and see which option they tend to select. Or put another way, (assuming you have children) would you rather send those children to a school of your choosing with ideals and values compatible with your own, or would you prefer your children to receive a sub-standard public school education and a side order of liberal indoctrination and thought control?

If public education is so great then why don’t we make university-level education public as well?

Gil: And, yet, your complaint about the government running schools is still valid. As are the complaints of others about the Pledge.

Once again I disagree. If the government is going to force me to send my children to school, then the very least they can do is allow the parents of those children to have a say in the manner in which their children will be indoctrinated/conditioned. The fact is that MOST parents have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance, nor with the phrase â??One nation under Godâ?.

Gil: These are bad things for a government in a free society to be doing. The majority opinion makes changing them impractical, but that doesn’t mean that criticisms are invalid or should stop.

On this point I am in complete agreement. Not only are you allowed to think whatever you want, but you are also guaranteed the Right to say (pretty much) whatever you want by the majority (by the Constitution/Bill of Rights).

And if the majority want to recite the pledge of allegiance or say a prayer in the morning before class, then who is the minority to deny them this right?

How does this square with your criticisms of those complain about the Pledge based on its status as the will of the majority.

I’m not sure how the majority of people feel about the war on drugs, but I’m pretty confident that most people think that the government should run schools and many think that the only question is how much more money they should be spending on it.

And, yet, your complaint about the government running schools is still valid. As are the complaints of others about the Pledge.

These are bad things for a government in a free society to be doing. The majority opinion makes changing them impractical, but that doesn’t mean that criticisms are invalid or should stop.

Brian Hawkins: 1st point: I have no problem with people having to deal with the consequences of their actions and beliefs…but I do have a problem with a government that creates consequences â?¦

But isnâ??t â??the governmentâ? simply the manifestation of the will of We the People? If it is actually We the People who are stipulating (creating) those consequences then where exactly is the contradiction?

The problem is people who donâ??t want there to be any consequences for their actions (going against the majority).

Brian Hawkins: [continues â?¦consequences â?¦] ranging from social discomfort for kids that don’t say the PoA to prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders–that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government’s proper roles of defending the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

Hereâ??s the thing â?¦ most (as in a â??majorityâ?) of people donâ??t have a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance or the concept of â??Godâ?, and similarly most people donâ??t have a problem with their children being conditioned as Citizens existing within a Society. Now on the other hand, regarding the legalization of drugs, I would say that it is highly doubtful that most people approve of the â??Drug Warâ?, or current drug sentencing guidelines. In a Democracy the majority rules (within specified limits) even if you happen to not agree with the majority. An inconsistency within a Democracy occurs when the will of the majority is thwarted.

Brian Hawkins: 2nd point: The Pledge says “…and to the Republic”, not to the society/community/civilization. Last time I checked, a republic is a type of government, i.e., the type we allegedly have.

Exactly. So are you actually contending that there is something wrong with the citizens of a community (and a â??Republicâ? is simply a specific form of community) reaffirming their loyalty and belief in the common ideals which unite them as a community? If it is not a common purpose which unites Individuals then what does unite individuals?

Brian Hawkins: 3rd point: You know, my initial reaction was to laugh at how ridiculous your comparison of teaching children to be good “members of society” to teaching them how not to shit on themselves was. But now that I think about it, the two have something very important in common: They are both the job of the parents.

Well then perhaps we can both agree that the government really has no business edumacating (i.e. brainwashing) our children in the first place then? To be honest I find it more than offensive that the people who actually pay for the schools and are forced to send their children there have no real say in the manner in which their children are educated.

But it isnâ??t really the government that is behind this scam. It is the Secularist (the Atheist theocracy) who canâ??t stand the notion of â??inferiorâ? parents passing on their â??inferiorâ? beliefs to their own offspring.

1st point:
I have no problem with people having to deal with the consequences of their actions and beliefs…but I do have a problem with a government that creates consequences–ranging from social discomfort for kids that don’t say the PoA to prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders–that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government’s proper roles of defending the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

2nd point:
The Pledge says “…and to the Republic”, not to the society/community/civilization. Last time I checked, a republic is a type of government, i.e., the type we allegedly have.

3rd point:
You know, my initial reaction was to laugh at how ridiculous your comparison of teaching children to be good “members of society” to teaching them how not to shit on themselves was. But now that I think about it, the two have something very important in common:

They are both the job of the parents.

Brian Hawkins: While technically true, tell that to the school kids across the country. I still remember the Jehovah’s Witness kid in the third grade who had to step out of the room every morning. Of course he wasn’t being “forced” to recite the pledge, but the consequences of being the ONE KID who had to CONSPICUOUSLY abstain from the morning loyalty oath were very real, and for an eight year old, no doubt profound.

You know â?¦ when I was a kid I had a friend who was a Jehovahâ??s witness and do you know what? â?¦ because of his religion he never got any Christmas or Birthday presents!?!?! What kind of world do we live in where people actually have to accept the consequences for the beliefs and the actions resultant from those beliefs???

Hopefully one day soon we will all be able to use our â??free willâ? and completely avoid any negative consequences that result from our beliefs and desires.

Brian Hawkins: The pledge was pretty clearly invented to condition people from an early age to the idea of allegiance to the state.

Well, I would contend that it is more accurate to say we are coercing/conditioning them at an early age to the notion of allegiance to our society/community (i.e. civilization).

Brian Hawkins: That the coercion involved is “soft” does not make it any less insidious, particularly for the children for which it is intended.

Think of it like this â?¦ Toilet training was pretty clearly invented to condition people from an early age to the idea of not pooping in their pants. That the coercion involved is “soft” does not make it any less insidious, particularly for the children for which it is intended

“It’s probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a little before they lunge for a political hot-button issue. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they’re defending. What’s so conservative about the Pledge? Very little, as it…

they love to tell you “stay inside the lines”
but something’s better on the other side

The notion is that the phrases “Declaration of independence” and “Pledge of allegiance” are antithetical; not that the great document is the opposite of the stupid loyalty oath that is meaningless to most who mumble it.

Seems true to me.

And a country that is worth defending needn’t rely on loyalty oaths to ensure its defense.

The fact that the government coerces children to recite the oath is embarrassing and a bit creepy. Yes, I know it’s technically voluntary (but even that took a court decision), but it’s not easy to exclude yourself from such an activity and risk the repercussions from teacher and peers.

I don’t know about you, but my rights come from God, not from the constition. My religious beliefs supercede this countries idea that a piece of hemp paper is what actually makes me a free man.

The Constitution is also the governing document of “the republic for which it stands” — formative, while accurate, is incomplete.

That is a fact– the flag is not the contstitution. But read on… “and to the republic for which it stands”

The constitution IS the formative document of “the republic for which it stands”

Clue: The flag is not the Constitution.

Well, for starters, even Stalin and Hitler had flags. The flag isn’t what makes this country what it is, so why the hell are people pledging allegiance to it?

It’s just a multicolored rag. The forefathers had precious little to do with it, considering that it has changed since they were around. But they did draft the Constitution.

So it’d make more sense to pledge allegiance to the Constitution, and that’d be far more educational. Might instill in people an awareness of its importance, and that it should be protected and not trampled on.

Pledging allegiance to a flag is pointless, because that same flag could represent an absolute bastardization of the principles of the Constitution.

Replace our system of government with a totalitarian system, with gulags, no civil rights, no protections, no vote. Keep the flag the same. What does the pledge mean then?