From: R. Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 13:40:58 MDT
I was very intimidated as a child from the pledge, because it seemed to me
like some kind of wierd contract, I was thinking "what's a pledge, what's
allegiance, why to a "flag" why indivisible what about states?
What god... am I in church or what?
I dont realy have a problem with the "God" part, no big deal to me
however IMO the pledge is rather communistic, I think we need something else
entirely to inspire patriotism (presuming there is a need to inspire
patriotism at all) in children besides some socialist utopian contract, let
me attempt to illustrate.
pledge
Law.
Delivery of goods or personal property as security for a debt or obligation:
a loan requiring a pledge of property.
The contract by which such delivery is made.
al·le·giance
n.
Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause.
See Synonyms at fidelity.
The obligations of a vassal to a lord.
Middle English alligeaunce, alteration of ligeaunce, from Old French
ligeance, from lige, liege. See liege.]
liege
n.
A lord or sovereign to whom allegiance and service are due according to
feudal law.
A vassal or subject owing allegiance and services to a lord or sovereign
under feudal law.
A loyal subject to a monarch.
but what have we here:
Hale vs.. Hinkle
The Individual may stand upon his constitutional rights... He owes no such
duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection
of his life and property, His rights as such as existed by the law of the
land long antecedent to the organization of the state...
"All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it's
duty to provide protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY
378), which duty is a debt owed to it's creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the
private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished
nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the government/state
provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised indi
vidual owes nothing to the government." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government
of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the
people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people]
have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." --
Supreme Court Justice Field
"Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing."Bouvier's Law
Dictionary (1914)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max More" <max@maxmore.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Cc: <max@maxmore.com>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: POLITICS: Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional!
> At 02:39 PM 6/28/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> >To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:11 PM
> >Subject: Re: POLITICS: Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional!
> >
> > > Dream on. Ask those 14% how many times they've gasped "oh god" in
> > > coitus. There are no atheists while they are holing foxes (or foxes
> > > getting holed).
> >
> >Indeed. "Oh, nothing!" doesn't quite do it.
>
> But "Oh! Big fucking BANG!" does it.
>
> Seriously, to those theists and even deists (not many in the USA these
> days) who think it's silly for non-believers to object to the relatively
> recently added "under God", I would ask: Would you have had any problem if
> the pledge said "one nation under no god" ? Somehow, I think they would.
>
> Max
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Max More, Ph.D.
> max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
> http://www.maxmore.com
> Strategic Philosopher
> President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
> _______________________________________________________
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:05 MST