Talk:Pledge of Allegiance criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I nuked the following paragraphs for POV:
- Another objection to the Pledge of Allegiance - which everyone seems to have overlooked, arises out of the idea that to "pledge allegiance" is arguably the same thing as taking or giving an oath of allegiance - something that would be or is politically incorrect in America, that is, when one considers the following quotes from the syllabus of a certain supreme court case circa 1795 - a time when those in the position of dealing with legal matters were still highly familliar with the old world concept of allegiance or oaths of allegiance (and the relation of such to America after 1776):
- "Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and neccesity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude."
If there's anything in there worth salvaging, someone else can find it. SFT | Talk 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blatant POV fork
Merge this pronto. theProject 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this merger, but all of the material on this article should be moved into the other article, and this page should be converted to a redirect. --Kalmia 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The "indivisible" clause
* The "indivisible" clause and the propriety of permanent allegiance to the republic are disputed, by those who hold secession legitimate; arguing that the American Union has as much right to break itself up as the Soviet Union did. This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution: Although both New York and Virginia affirmed the right of revolution, by which they had attained independence, the Virginia ratifying convention determined, and its secretary James Madison informed New York, that "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other states". According to the convention, reserving the right to withdraw would be "worse than a rejection".[2] On the other hand, the right of association (freedom of association) logically infers the right to not associate with others; this fact places the political intentions of an everlasting, inescapable obligation imposed on one's descendents in a questionable moral position.
Specifically:
"This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution"
This is disputed. Hamilton would likely support the idea that this was the original intent, but most would not, and secession was largely seen as legitimate up until the 1860s. See Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Hartford Convention. Those aren't the only examples. --Kalmia 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wheelchair zombies!
What if your handicapped? What if? Huh? HUH? Somebody get me a lozenge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.48.107 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
