Pledge of allegiance declared unconstuti

[Flyer]

[No message]

 

[Timebuilder]

No problem, Flyer.

Any time we discuss RJ's, PFT, Guns in the cockpit, Hiring preferences, or who "owns" certain flying, emotions seem to run high. The more traditional subjects that arouse ire are religion and politics. While I like Franklin, I think that his quote misses the point of what we were discussing. In fact, our discussion missed the point of what we were discussing: the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Far from being a "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." argument, the constitution's article one states that (paraphasing) that congress shall make no law respecting religion. In this case, respect is not deference, in the way a Lieutenant respects a General, but instead it means "having to do with", as in passing a law that says that Catholicsm is our "Official Religion of the United States". The action that congress took to add the words "under God" to the pledge in the '50's was not a law.

Perhaps you are referencing what happened to our discussion in A squared's first post in the thread. He proposed the idea, without merit, that I was comfortable with the pledge because it was "my God" being mentioned, rather than my understanding of the constitution. He then accused my of being a hypocrite for not having a personal respect for other "inserted" names of specific entities such as Mohammed or Satan; a very long reach to imagine that possibility, indeed. I then, perhaps foolishly I admit, tried to meet him suficiently to show him that was not my motivation, and that his argument lacked the logical cohesion to stand up beyond the stage of "finger pointing". Maybe this was a futile effort, I don't know.

Certainly, Franklin's view would apply if we were attempting to ascertain the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin, a fruitless discussion from decades ago. On the contrary, I was trying to follow and dissect assumptions that had been made in his original acusation; assumptions which he had no factual basis to posit. More than likely, those assumptions were based on the views he had heard from others, and I was being lumped into a group where I did not belong. He thought that I wanted everyone to believe what I believe, assuming of course that he knew what that was, which I doubt.

So, Franklin's "It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so." is not really applicable here, since I can clearly, I hope articulate what I do believe, and he can accurately posit what he thinks I believe. Looking back, the only merit I find in the time I took to attempt to clarify my position was to help others who have similar discussions about the constitution to have a better understanding of the document in general, and for others here to understand myself, in particular. Having any religion declared as the "official" religion of the US would be BAD for everyone concerned. I hope that much is clear.

 

[TurboS7]

I am up to the book Desecration in the Left Behind series. Interesting look at what a one world religion would be like.