I pledge allegiance to my Black People. I pledge to develop my mind and body to the greatest extent possible. I will learn all that I can in order to give my best to my People in their struggle for liberation. I will keep myself physically fit, building a strong body free from drugs and other substances which weaken me and make me less capable of protecting myself, my family and my Black brothers and sisters. I will unselfishly share my knowledge and understanding with them in order to bring about change more quickly. I will discipline myself to direct my energies thoughtfully and constructively rather than wasting them in idle hatred. I will train myself never to hurt or allow others to harm my Black brothers and sisters for I recognize that we need every Black Man, Woman, and Child to be physically, mentally and psychologically strong. These principles I pledge to practice daily and to teach them to others in order to unite my People. The Black Panther Pledge of Allegience (it would be a great prank to organize your class to say this instead, a real test of freedom)
Surely you don't want us honkies saying that pledge, right? "...MY black people."?? ...lol! But I think ye're right ......the nation should be divided into areas for each group of individuals who share a common goal and common ideals. Voluntary segragation is the only way to achieve harmony in this great nation. Baron Max
We ought to be pledging allegiance to the Constitution not a symbol of a country. The Constitution is what this country is all about. "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United Sates of America, And to the Republic that it created, One nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all" Simple, to the point, no religion, no flags, nothing but the law of the land.
But the Constitution has "god" in it, too. Ooooh, now what??? Oh, wait, I know .........civil war!!! ...LOL! Baron Max
Oooh, sorry! Perhaps in the Preamble? The Bill of Rights? One or more of the amendments? .....hey, I'm grasping here, please help! ....LOL! Baron Max
You are probably thinking of The Declaration of Independence. A few quotes are often brought up on the anti-absolute separation side of the argument... (emphasis added, obviously) I hardly think it makes their case, but I think this is what you were flailing about for. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One of the real problems with the pledge is that it's not supposed to have one agree to uphold any ideals or respect the law or consitution or anything - it's just sort of a general "My country right or wrong" sort of mantra.
Would it be a truism to say that those who appeal to the Constitution to support their case have generally not read it,while those who choose to defend the Constitution generally have? Or is that the sort of simplistic rhetoric that a certain Baron might be guilty of?
Are you referring to this argument in particular (under God, Seperation of Church and State) or argument about the Constitution in general? What do you define as the difference between "appealing to the Constitution" and "defending it"?
Judge Lawrence Karlton The Very Definition Of An Activist Judge! They dare not admit it but liberals everywhere are silently cheering Wednesday’s decision by yet another liberal activist judge Lawrence Karlton ruled the Pledge of allegiance Unconstitutional. The judge cited the precedent of the 9th circus court of appeals who in 2003 also ruled the pledge to be illegal. The supreme court punted rather than rule on the issue and threw it out stating that Mike Newdow was not a proper party to the case because he was not the custodial parent of his daughter. Since the Supreme Court Thew it out it voided any precident the 9th Circus may had set. Therefore Judge Karlton is either being very disengenuous, or he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way he is not fit to be a judge. Just like a vampire must feed on blood, Michael Newdow feeds on attention. Newdow got a couple of minions to do his bidding and reopened the case. I think it’s safe to say that he won the case this time around the second he walked into Judge Lawrence Karlton’s courtroom. Now it will go back to the 9th Circus where they will probably rule in favor of the judge thus once again finding it's way to the Supreme Court. Jimmy Carter nominated US District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton’s in 1979. When will we stop living the national nightmare that was the Carter Presidency? Just enter his name in any search engine and you will find a smorgasbord of liberal decisions he has handed down. Judge Karlton is a liberal lawyers dream. He would be on the top of any judge-shopping list, and could be said to be the poster boy for activist judges. He truly is a liberal’s liberal. The judge has done pro-bono work for the ACLU, and mentored many law clerks that have gone on to be leftist lawyers and judges themselves. Obviously the reason he cited the 9th Circus court of appeals is because he would fit right in. Besides This new ruling he routinely overturns death sentences. One example is Steven Ainsworth, who was convicted in 1980 of murdering a woman in the Sacramento area. He was sentenced to death and the California Supreme Court upheld the death Sentence. Then the murderer had the luck of entering Judge Karlton’s courtroom. The judge threw out the death sentence citing that his lawyer did not give the jurors enough information about the Ainsworth’s tough upbringing. See http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/dec99/1083.html "I find that, due to trial counsel's failure to investigate and presentany meaningful mitigating evidence, even without his blunderingcontribution to the [prosecution's] evidence, there is a reasonableprobability that the jury would have imposed a sentence other thandeath," Sacramento federal Judge Lawrence Karlton wrote in September,reversing -- for the 2nd time -- the 19-year-old capital conviction ofSteven Ainsworth. The California Supreme Court considered and rejectedthat same argument 10 years ago. "The jurors had to decide whether this man would live or die, and theynever knew who he was beyond the crime," Eastern District Federal PublicDefender Quin Denvir told the Sacramento Bee. "He wasn't humanized." Although ineffective assistance is the most popular claim made by prisoners, it is among the toughest to present and prove, promptingfrequent requests from counsel for additional time and resource. The jurors just couldn’t see that the killer was really a great person if you just got to know him. This is the kind of judge Lawrence Karlton is. There is a silver lining to all of this. He has put the Democrats in an awkward position during the Senate hearings for John Roberts, and the next nominee that will be named by President Bush. Democrats will be on the defensive because of this ruling and President Bush can use this case to hit home the need for non-activist conservative judges. Let’s hope the President takes advantage of it.
Hopefully being a conservative judge doesn't mean you rule in favor of conservative forces. As for the judge in this case, I don't care what his record is. I can't see how it can be argued that he ruled poorly.
"Meanwhile, the Senate voted late Thursday to condemn the district judge's ruling. The non-binding resolution, approved by unanimous consent, states that the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge reflects the religious faith central to the founding of the nation and that its recitation is 'a fully constitutional expression of patriotism.' " So, the Senate is saying that the pledge reflects the religious faith central to the founding of the nation, yet the pledge wasn't written until the end of the 19th century, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until the 1950's. As for patriotism...to state what should be obvious, true patriotism is not about flag waving and allegiance to the symbol, but allegiance to a dynamic and constructive way of life that includes dissent. We can see how the "unity" that characterized the American people immediately after 9-11 dissolved to its former levels because it was not based on anything constructed together, but simply a reaction against a common external threat.
How about eliminating pledges and just living in as responsible, ethical, and just a manner as we can?
"How about eliminating pledges and just living in as responsible, ethical, and just a manner as we can? " I am all for that, but if we are going to have a pledge and make our children recite it, let's at least address it to something more meaningful than a flag.
Explain that to a 6year old who is told by his teacher that this is the right thing to do and who does not have the developed sense of right or wrong to question that. Brainwash 'em while they are young and you control them forever. The Catholics have been doing it for centuries.
