"Better go back (thru historical documents) and see just what were the "basic beliefs" this country was actually founded on. "
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Founding principles for this country, clearly intimating a belief and support of some divine or overseeing power, as quoted from one of the earliest documents. Granted, the pledge doesn't cover those believing in polytheistic religions, but that point was conceded some number of posts before.
"Where does the "whine" point come from? Recognize this:
"it's more the fact that those same people must find something, anything to protest and cry 'discrimination' against."
Would you tell the blacks of 40 years ago that they are merely trying to find something, anything to protest and cry 'discrimination' against? Would you dare? "
Completely separate circumstances, as referring to the earlier quote from the Declaration shows. The blacks were indeed discriminated harmfully against, their abilities to perform any number of actions granted through 'equality' denied, but the pledge does nothing of the sort. I'm 29, and at no time during my school career was I 'forced' to say the pledge or recite it in precisely the form given. I can even remember any number of instances where class jokers changed the wording entirely, without consequence unless they caused too great a disturbance.
"The fact is, this IS discriminating against a number of people - a larger number than you would even admit. But even if it were only discriminating unreasonably against ONE person, it wouldn't be acceptable. And because the remedy - restore it to the historical form - discriminates against nobody, there is no reason not to do it. "
On this point, there is a stronger point of contention... You claim that it would then discriminate against none, correct? Yet what of those who find no offense with the wording? Those who believe that it is a fitting part of the pledge... you would then be discriminating against them by denying their right of preference, wouldn't you?
"Answer this: what if we put little bits of relgious text into ALL of our documents? How would you feel about your freedom then? What if the more documents you read, the more they supported a single belief system, perhaps a single Christian sect or a specific Jewish sect? Why do you think ANY relgious dogma should be permitted in government documents?"
That the government and the people that they govern are made of a diverse array of people is indisputable, and it's thereby inevitable that some part of what they believe or think will make its way into various documents regardless... for no other reason than someone thought the rhyme or meter sounded better one way than another. So long as the majority of the people agree that the line has not been crossed, then the principals that this country was founded on have not been violated. That is ultimately what a democracy boils down to... we vote, and thereby exercise our rights to representation.
|
