U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

[Guest]

Hey all,If you'll forive me for entering so late and on such a 'basic' level, I have something of note.I don't know what all the fuss about the Pledge of Allegiance is. As asvi said a long while back, I really don't know what the fuss is all about. Let me explain.I'm (now) British. Ten years ago I arrived to England from Bosnia as a legitimate emigrant. And to be honest, I love England. It's a kind place, there are good schools, it's safe (no gunpoint robery at every 7-11 like we hear about from the States), I have all the friends I want. I'm happy here, because the British, for the most part, have welcomed me with open arms, given me feet to stand on and basically saved me from death in Sarajevo.BUT I would never agree to DAILY pledge allegiance to the Queen. Or to Tony Blair (He's the Prime Minister for those that don't know :(). I love being British, I'm proud of being in the RAF, I'm glad to live here and would not move, but in my HEART I am still a Bosnian. If I were to pledge allegiance to anything, it would be to my ten-year-old memories of childhood among the friends, some of them long dead, that I once had. I would pledge to their memory and the life I could have had, but never to somebody or something whose purpose I don't know, or understand, or want to.And that's why I'm not American, nor do I ever want to be, if somebody is to force me to pledge allegiance to something I feel I cannot know, or trust, or understand.And if you disagree, remember freedom of speech, and consider my viewpoint.Toni (Proud British-Bosnian)

[Sonar5 3]

For our good friends from across the pond who refuse to read a thread and look for answers, I will state it again.You said:"if somebody is to force me to pledge allegiance to something I feel I cannot know, or trust, or understand."Ok, READ THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE SLOWLY SO IT SINKS IN, PLEASE ;-)*************************************************The Supreme Court ruled prior to this that no one can be compelled to recite the pledge.IT IS NOT FORCED ON ANYONE.. Please quit listening to a biased press or a biased news paper and do some research on your own before chiming in, as it is not a lot to ask.*************************************************SHeesh, read the thread and do a little research.And for thos who do not want to be a United States Citizen, great. Have a nice life. :-)And your comment about not wanting to say a pledge to the Queen. Here is my response.I live in The United States of America, and I am a Citizen. We gained our independence from Great Britain a long time ago.We have different laws and different customs and traditions, so please understand the differences.Thanks,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

>The fact is that the EU has a President. >The Fact is that the EU Has Ministers >The Fact is the EU has Currency Only the last fact is true.>The EU as a whole has a greater population then the USA.Yes >>There is no nations on Earth where the President has the >same powers as another nation. They may be different >powers, but thay still have a President. True>>So FACTUALLY, I am correct.No. >>A president is a president, and a minister is a minister.The president of your local golf club is hardly comparable to the president of the US, so I'm afraid, some semantics do have to come in here. So, I think we can agree to define 'president' in this context as someone who is the head of state and/or head of government of a sovereign nation. >>Here are some facts from the EU Website. >"Unlike the United States, the EU is founded on >international treaties among sovereign nations rather than a >constitution. The power to enact laws that are directly >binding on all EU citizens throughout the EU territory also >distinguishes the Union from international organizations. >This governing system differs from all previous national and >international models." Well, there you go. Just as I said.>Having the power to enact laws across the entire territory >acts like a country to me. And I hope they becoem on, as >maybe it will bring lasting peace top that region of the >world. Ha, but the areas of law to which those powers extend are severely limited in accordance with the relevant treaties and amendments thereto, as you quote here:>The legislative role of the European Parliament has been >strengthened over the years. Although the EP cannot enact >laws like national parliaments, the Maastricht Treaty >provides for a codecision procedure that empowers Parliament >to veto legislation in certain policy areas and to confer >with the Council in a "conciliation committee" to iron out >differences in their respective drafts of legislation. The >Amsterdam Treaty extends the number of policy areas in which >Parliament can exercise these powers." Again, as it clearly states, the European Parliament has no legislative powers, only powers to veto and 'iron out' legislation in pre-defined policy areas.>"The European Parliament (EP) comprises 626 members, >directly elected in EU-wide elections for five-year terms. >The president of the Parliament is elected for a >two-and-a-half year term. Though they are elected on a >national basis, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) >form political rather than national groups based on party >affiliation.It clearly states that the President of Parliament is elected for a 2 1/2 year term. Maybe to avoid confusion, they should have given him the title 'Speaker of the House' ;). >The European Council brings together heads of state and >government and the president of the Commission. It meets at >least twice a year at the end of each EU member state's >six-month presidency. The Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 >formalized the European Council, which was not foreseen in >the original EC treaties.Pleas note the phrase 'heads of state and government' and, especially 'president of the Commission' - NOT the EU. >The Nice European Council decided that, from 2002 on, one >European Council meeting per presidency will be held in >Brussels. Once the Union has reached eighteen member states, >all European Council meetings will be held there, >reinforcing its status as "the capital of Europe." This is not a formal decision to make Brussels the capital of Europe, it's simply the seat of the European Commission, and therefore a more convenient place to hold the Council meetings, rather than having to travel to the member state that currently holds the presidency.Cheers,Gosta.

[Guest]

Hey, wait,I couldn't read the whole thread because my browser kept crashing due to its size.And also, I know the Supreme Court ''ruled prior to this that no one can be compelled to recite the pledge'' . And I happen to think it's good. Why should anybody have to give up their nationality/pride/inner wellbeing/religion to be conglomerated into a massed, shadowy, unknown, all-representing America?Americans have a lot to be justly proud of. The DC-3, freedom, military swing, the whole cahoot. But there is also a lot of crapulence going on (if I may say) which several people do not appreciate. If I was a born-and-bred American, I would understand and accept it. Even love it. But being a fish from the other side of the pond I don't. Now which one of us is wrong? And who will decide? Who has the right?Toni

[Guest]

Good points Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

Ok,We'll just disagree, I still say it's a duck.. Some just will live in denial, while it gained more and more power, eh.. :-)Keep in mind, I hope it does become a as strong or stronger than the uSA, it does not matter to me, as long as there is peace. I will support it either way. I do not oopose it.Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

Toni,That is just it.You should have either read the thread or did a google search for the histroy of our Pledge prior to your post about others forcing people to recite it.I would be interested as to why you thought we were forcing others to recite. Was that being reported by a news outlet in the UK?Or a website?Regards,Joe :-)http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

Live in denial of what? The EU is undoubtedly stronger than ever...but I can't agree with the idea of mixing an economy like Greece's with that of Britain, but heck...

[Guest]

Sonar5: Wasn't that what asvi said? And I'm told by the news here (BBC1, Six O'Clock News, about 2 months ago) that ALL immigrants to the US have to pledge allegiance to the US.

[Sonar5 3]

Yes, that is what asvi said, but it was his responsibility to know his rights. The teacher was wrong, and if pushed on it, I assure you, it would not have happened again. But he chose to comply even though it was not right if he did not wish to recite it. His Fault for not understanding the law. Ignorance of a lwaw cannot be used as a defence in my country.If that is what the BBC said, they were WRONG, and that would be the reference to the biased press I was referring to. Maybe you can find it in print somewhere or their archive or send them an email.Here are some undisputed FACTS regarding our Pledge.The United States Supreme Court stated that no one is compelled to recite the pledge. This was a decision made prior to this current charade of a case.The Pledge is part of the ceremony not when someone immigrates to The United States, but when they CHOOSE to become citizens after meeting certain requirements.If they went to the ceremony, and just stood there during the Pledge and said nothing, they would still become a Citizen at that point.Of course, they may feel odd standing there, but that is their right if they choose it.I think all the Citizenship Ceremonies I have seen, I don't recall anyone becoming a citizen that has chosen to not say the pledge.And if they say, well I thought it was required. Shame on them.It is the RESPONSIBILITY of each citizen to know the law, it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to know the law, but there are requirements in school and by individual states to show competance in The Unites States Constitution in order to graduate from High School.I hope this helps you understand, and I will be happy to answer any other questions you have. :-)Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

I don't live in denial, just in full awareness of the facts. At the moment, the EU is very far from being or becoming a single nation, and it may never happen. From its humble origins as the ESRC nd EURATOM, the EU has evolved from a free tade area into a highly successful economic union without the cost of sacrificing vital parts of national sovereignty. So your fears of the EU becoming stronger than the US can be put to rest for the time being. However, if I were to take your definition of the EU as a single nation, then it already is the biggest economy in the world. Just look at the various attempts by US trade delegates to prevent that from happening, which ranged from the amusing through the ridiculous to the downright unbelievable (Mickey Kantor was one of the most entertaining specimens).Cheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

Ahhhh, the root of it.You Said:"However, if I were to take your definition of the EU as a single nation, then it already is the biggest economy in the world."WRONG.....I'll take your apology please... :-)Read This from the EU's own site, then respond:http://www.eurunion.org/profile/facts.htmand this one, please:http://www.eurunion.org/profile/EUUSStats.htmIf you feel I fear the EU being stronger than the United States, I do not. Again, you failed to read my comment regarding that above.In the United States, States Rights are very important. Texas has different laws than Illinois on a lot of different issues.Germany and France have a lot of different laws on a lot of different issues.see my analogy. Yet Murder violates the law in all Four States, Germany, France, Texas, and Illinois.Each of our states has a Governor, and a house and senate.The EU has member states with their own governments.You may not see the changes, but I do.Like I already stated, we will just have to agree to disagree, because I am afraid you will not change my analogies or my interpretations of facts, and yet I still respect yours. :-)Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

>I'll take your apology please... :-) Well, once the figures for this year are out... Also, please take into account the balance of payments - the US is technically insolvent (link to follow later).>In the United States, States Rights are very important. >Texas has different laws than Illinois on a lot of different >issues. >>Germany and France have a lot of different laws on a lot of >different issues. >>see my analogy. Yet Murder violates the law in all Four >States, Germany, France, Texas, and Illinois.True, but only France and Germany could pass laws legalizing murder, Texas and Illinois could not. >Each of our states has a Governor, and a house and senate. >>The EU has member states with their own governments. >>You may not see the changes, but I do.Yes, I see the analogies, but the biggest part of national sovereignty is missing: The conduct of foreign policy. None of the federal US states is recognized as an independent country (or has any desire to be). There is a big difference between a federal country, such as the US or Germany and a supranational organization, such as the EU.Cheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

You should still apologize for not stating facts. I apologize every single time I am wrong. :-)You Said:"Well, once the figures for this year are out... Also, please take into account the balance of payments - the US is technically insolvent (link to follow later)."Our GDP was revised and grew over 6% in the first quarter. Our Unemployment is lower, our inflation rate is lower, and you believe that the EU will be a larger economy by the end of 2002. That is a bit of a stretch, IMHO.As far as the United States being insolvent, why would you make such comment. Do you dislike the United States?I think economically, we should be running a deficit in our country. Surpluses show inefficiencies in the budget, IMHO. Talk to any economist as I have, and they tend to have some pretty strong opinions on the matter. We are are at war whether people realize it or not, and our currently fighting for our right to exist on this good earth.Or, we could start collecting debts owed to us instead of continuing to forgive those debts, eh.... :-)you said:"True, but only France and Germany could pass laws legalizing murder, Texas and Illinois could not."WRONG, You see, Illinois could legalize murder if they wanted to. And actually my faith tells me and my heart tells me that we already sanction murder in the form of executions. Again, I am stating facts, and you are stating conjecture as though you do not know our laws or our form of Government. Please do some research as to how legislation is enacted by both the states and our Federal Government to fully understand this debate. I'm afraid you just don't show proper depth to continue to make your comparisons of our laws and our way of life.You said:"The conduct of foreign policy. None of the federal US states is recognized as an independent country (or has any desire to be)*****Side note, you have not been to Texas, have you? :-lol )******. There is a big difference between a federal country, such as the US or Germany and a supranational organization, such as the EU."Give it time, IMHO, they will have their own military. And I am not saying that is a bad thing, I think it would be good.Regards,Joe :-wave

[Sonar5 3]

You Said:"Well, once the figures for this year are out... Also, please take into account the balance of payments - the US is technically insolvent (link to follow later)."I don't often reply to my own posts, but I have to question your motives about the insolvency of The United States of America comment.What does that have to do with anything other than bashing my country which I find offensive.Here is a link for today's value of United States Debthttp://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htmYou live in Canada, don't you. Well, you don't see me commenting about Canada's national Debt, do you? Yet, you choose to bash my country with that comment.You should be ashamed of yourself, IMHO.regards,Joe :-(PS - There is a difference in definition as to debt and deficit, so please use proper wording.