Some of the members of my Toastmasters Club didn't want to recite the Pledge
at the beginning of the meeting.  It is almost a state side custom in the
international organization.
I offered that we read the mission statement instead.
http://www.toastmasters.org/pdfs/Mission&Vision.pdf
It is phrased a bit differently on the banner, but it does bring us all
together for one purpose and gives us focus for the meeting.
I agree with Russ, that we should start anew and create a new pledge to
accommodate all.  One message we can all stand behind which reminds us of
what we as North American citizens are all about.

Guy Avenell
www.hptraderonline.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: church and state


> Greg,
>
> My father is somewhere laughing at my even joining this discussion.
>
> Following my writing that the logic used to say President Eisenhower's
> action was unconstitutional could not be counter argued logically, you
wrote
>
> > Of course, it can. However, about the time someone says that one cannot
> > argue a thing that is part of one's position, it's a good time to stop
and
> > find out if it is worth continuing to argue at all.
>
> You are most correct sir, on both points.  In fact, I fully retract both
my
> statement about the argument and my thesis.  I have joined the camp of
> persons who believe that the Pledge of Allegiance is not unconstitutional.
> The Pledge of Allegiance, however, should be changed.
>
> It is my understanding, however ludicrous the circumstances of this debate
> arose, that the point of contention is that the text of the Pledge of
> Allegiance violates the nature of our historic tenant of separation of
> church and state.  Specifically, a pledge of allegiance to our country (as
> represented by our national flag), should not include a declaration of a
> religious nature, since such declaration would be suppressive both to
> persons without religious faith or members of faiths not included in that
> declaration.
>
> In this way, that declaration would be discriminatory.  Its inclusion as
> part of a mandatorily attended, publicly funded activity is repressive and
> harmful.  The argument while seeming extreme is no more outrageous than
that
> by which the free speech right our Constitution grants to all Americans
> allows Nazis to publish whatever lies and ignorance they wish.
>
> As we develop laws to limit or remove discrimination in as many areas as
> possible in order to protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals,
the
> text of our pledge should be corrected.  It may be more or less fortunate
> that our country is currently in a "war" that this is occurring, but maybe
> it's time for George to make an even larger name for himself.  Maybe he
> should would with Congress to create a new Pledge of Allegiance.
>
> Being a part of the judeo-christian majority of this country, my faith
> exists and is not excluded from the terminology of our Pledge of
Allegiance.
> Nonetheless, I agree that for persons who do not practice a religion, or
who
> may practice a religion not overseen by a monotheistic deity referred to
by
> a masculine term, that the text of the current pledge might be offensive.
>
> Until this debate arose, I had no idea the text had not always included
the
> phrase "under God", nor had I considered that it might be offensive to
> others.  Having now been forced to think about it, I understand the
argument
> made by the litigants.  So, while I admit points made by certain
individuals
> on this list have shown that, in the technical sense, the issue is not
truly
> one of "unconstitutionality", I would also say there is evidence and
> precedent for the reversal of President Eisenhower's change.
>
> Just as my right to move my arm freely stops one inch from another
person's
> nose, and my right to speak freely is limited in circumstances where my
> exercising it would cause others harm (i.e. yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded
> theatre), I also recognize that my right to practice my faith with
> conviction and without fear of recrimination stops short of imposing my
> beliefs on others.  It is my responsibility to answer any question put to
me
> about my faith, to the best of my abilities.  It is my responsibility to
> live a life which hopefully others will wish to emulate and as such, join
my
> faith.  I can not, however, impose my beliefs on others, and I believe
that
> is what the inclusion of even implied religious dogma in our pledge does.
>
> Feel free to attack any or all of this email.  :)
>
> Rs~
>
> Russ Smith
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to
reflect
> those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely
for
> the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *