Melissa Bean Bans Pledge of Allegiance at Debate

[CorvetteTom]

This is in the communist state of Illinois but her intent goes much deeper than just there.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSMk2dvjuCo"]YouTube - Pledge of Allegiance BANNED at Melissa Bean Debate[/ame]

 

[Woodsman]

Saw this before, but it constitutes a very real image of what the progressives have led us to. The best part of this video is not the initial language being captured, but the entire audience standing up as one and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in unison without missing a beat! Public defiance, indeed.

"I'm sorry sir, the forum rules say no videotaping is allowed." I call BS on that!

 

[Pocketman]

Melissa Bean Bans Pledge of Allegiance at Debate

I do not know Ms. Bean nor her opponents. I have no agenda here other than an attempt to learn the truth. From what I can tell, it was the League of Women Voters who left the Pledge of Alliegance out of the program. Democrat Melissa Bean and Republican Joe Walsh stood and recited the Pledge. Green Party candidate Bill Scheurer did not.

Why start out with a misleading title that incorrectly states Melissa Bean banned recitation of the Pledge?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I understand what people are intending by reciting it, but I wonder how many of them think about what they're saying. I wonder how many know the history of the Pledge or of its author?

Their intention is to show patriotism. Their intention in the video appeared to be to prove to the debate moderator that she could not control them. To me, it came across that the thing they recited was their statement that they were willing to be controlled, to have their associations made mandatory by something subordinate to them.

The Pledge makes a promise of support for the symbol and the government that is, according to it, once put together and can never be dissolved. It pays lip service to our Creator and to liberty and justice while at its core violating them.

I modified the original with the version in my sig many months ago. The flag is symbolic of the government; the Constitution is symbolic of what the government was supposed to be, of the Founders' intent. The recognition of the states as sovereign is necessary. The very fact that one meaning of "state" is "country" or "nation" (i.e. the affairs of state) tells me that it is no accident that our fifty are called that. If one or more of our states was to decide that it was no longer represented by the central government in Washington, I believe it is that states' right, power, and privilege to disassociate from that central government, to deprive it of the funding it extorts from her residents, and to at the same time, relinquish any protection that that central government provides. Note that this is not the same as declaring war against that government. I refer to a peaceful, amicable separation in which each chooses to go its separate way. Perhaps they will still have trade. Perhaps they will respect each others' borders, but these things are not absolute.

Under the Pledge most of us recited by rote as schoolchildren, none of that is theoretically possible. I support the peoples' right to say it if they choose. I support their defiance of the debate moderator's order. I just think they defied slavery by putting themselves in chains.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I suspect that their view of "patriotism" is not as "evolved" as yours is. More likely, they just didn't want to be told they couldn't do it by someone who was courting their vote for public office.

 

[dross]

I agree with BOR. I've never liked, nor felt patriotic pledging allegience to the flag. The flag is an object, and a symbol. The Constitution is also a symbol, but much more.

I also have a slight problem with the "under God" phrase. While I accept and understand that the Constitution does't require a wall of separation between church and state, I think it's a pretty damned good idea.

 

[CorvetteTom]

Wow... I think some of you are really reading too deep into this. I think the people are sick of being told by politicians what they cannot do. I think the 'spontaneous' recital was how those people stood up to bureaucracy and those politicians attempting to dictate against their will.

I am also a patriot to this country. PERIOD. She has flaws, she makes mistakes but she is my country. I think I can recite the Pledge without being labeled a misinformed conformist. I think the more we, as Americans, can rally around a common purpose for the good of us all, the better.

I think the speaker in the video was Ms Bean, was attempting to reign in the people with her supposed 'position' in government. Which elected public figure has a right to order you around?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree with BOR. I've never liked, nor felt patriotic pledging allegience to the flag. The flag is an object, and a symbol. The Constitution is also a symbol, but much more.

I also have a slight problem with the "under God" phrase. While I accept and understand that the Constitution does't require a wall of separation between church and state, I think it's a pretty damned good idea.

Did all those quotes I've read from the Founders citing "GOD" constitute the complete body of such cites, or did the Founders consider their faith in God as being fundamental to their society? Granted, I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I've read the Federalist Papers and various other quotations from various authors. God and Faith seemed to be a common theme. I've read quotes by George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and others. Even the Deists among them seemed to have no problem professing a faith of some sort. When I was growing up in Chicago, there were all sorts of folks in our neighborhood, from all sorts of backgrounds. Religion was commonly not discussed, but that didn't mean that no one was religious; it was merely considered unproductive to argue about it. That was all before the push started to get all mention of religion and God out of the public eye. Did taking prayer out of school begin the process desensitizing our children to things moral and making it easier to get them to believe that morality is relative? Seems that way to me. We didn't have any problems with racial or religious hatred; the few Jewish kids in our school were the subject of lively curiousity rather than suspicion or hatred. When did that change? We got along pretty well for 180 years with religion in our public life; it's only been since the 70's (and the influx of 60s radicals into our education and political systems) and the introduction of "political correctness" that we've started to have all these perceived problems with religion in government. The "Religious Right" didn't form until confronted by such concepts as legalized abortion and removing the most innocuous of prayers from schools and the public. It was those asserting their "right" to not be offended who began this slide, not those who wanted to practice their religion.

 

[henktermaat]

Wow... I think some of you are really reading too deep into this. I think the people are sick of being told by politicians what they cannot do. I think the 'spontaneous' recital was how those people stood up to bureaucracy and those politicians attempting to dictate against their will.

I am also a patriot to this country. PERIOD. She has flaws, she makes mistakes but she is my country. I think I can recite the Pledge without being labeled a misinformed conformist. I think the more we, as Americans, can rally around a common purpose for the good of us all, the better.

I think the speaker in the video was Ms Bean, was attempting to reign in the people with her supposed 'position' in government. Which elected public figure has a right to order you around?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wow... I think some of you are really reading too deep into this. I think the people are sick of being told by politicians what they cannot do. I think the 'spontaneous' recital was how those people stood up to bureaucracy and those politicians attempting to dictate against their will.

I am also a patriot to this country. PERIOD. She has flaws, she makes mistakes but she is my country. I think I can recite the Pledge without being labeled a misinformed conformist. I think the more we, as Americans, can rally around a common purpose for the good of us all, the better.

I think the speaker in the video was Ms Bean, was attempting to reign in the people with her supposed 'position' in government. Which elected public figure has a right to order you around?

No question that the people were exhibiting the end of their patience at being told what they could not do.

If you took from what I wrote that I was calling you either misinformed or a conformist, please don't. Until I sat and thought out what it was saying, I thought it patriotic to recite the same Pledge I learned in school as well. It's not being either misinformed or a conformist, it's just something we have no reason to sit and think about until it's brought to our attention. (My father, rest his soul, used to joke about something he heard of being done on the golf course. As another player in the foursome was addressing the ball, he was asked, "Hey Jim... Do you inhale or exhale on your backswing?" Obviously, "Jim" didn't know, but the question threw off his next shot as he thought about it, which was the goal. I don't know if these events actually happened or not, just that he reported he'd heard of it.)

I also agree with you about uniting to a common purpose. Defining what that purpose is and ensuring that it truly is to our combined best interest are of at least equal importance, though.

Thanks for your post. It's not my intention to insult, but discovering that I may have done so gives me the opportunity to make my meaning more clear.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree with BOR. I've never liked, nor felt patriotic pledging allegience to the flag. The flag is an object, and a symbol. The Constitution is also a symbol, but much more.

I also have a slight problem with the "under God" phrase. While I accept and understand that the Constitution does't require a wall of separation between church and state, I think it's a pretty damned good idea.

I agree, it is a good idea in both directions. I don't want any "establishment of religion", that is, any specific church, synagogue, or mosque, defining the laws of my country, nor do I want my government going into any house of worship and making laws about their practices that do not infringe upon the rights of those participating. (Example: I'm OK with laws forbidding human or animal sacrifice, unless the human has given voluntary consent to do so. I think that is his or her right to choose. If a religion condones multiple spouses or consensual adult sexual behavior in the course of their ritual or belief, however, that is their own business. No one is forced to believe as anyone else does.) For those who do want that, I would ask which one they want doing so and why that one should take precedence over others? (The question is rhetorical; please do not answer it openly on the board.)

That our nation is "under God" was not even a part of the Pledge we learned in school when it was originally written, but insofar as the text of the Declaration of Independence states, our nation is most assuredly "under God", in the sense that He is our Creator from whom our rights are given, and as such, it is a question of governmental philosophy, not one of religious discussion. The 1A's Establishment Clause was written with the clear memory of what happens when the people must belong to a specific church and/or when that church makes governmental policy. The 1A states in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which to me says that the two should remain separate. Don't teach morals or theology in my classrooms and don't teach science or history in the sanctuary. A time and a place for everything.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dom1104]

Bill is spot on here.

Blind nationalism has no place.

 

[CorvetteTom]

I took no offense, Bill. I understood your point, I was clearing it up for those that might not have.

Where I have a major concern is that our government has taken on the issue of obliterating Christianity from all public life. There are many Christian people that work at government offices that are banned from even having a tiny Christmas tree on their desk. That, to me, is insanity! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say freedom FROM religion. But there is a sincere and concerted effort to ban it from public view of any sorts.

As for for patriotism... this country NEEDS a huge dose of it and soon. There is almost 2 generations now that have no idea what it means to honor this country. Nor do they have any idea what it means to defend it. We've had it so easy for so long and our children, for the most part, haven't had to suffer for anything. They haven't been seriously taught about the sacrifices our forefathers made for the greatness of this country. We could use some patriotism put back in our daily lives... and soon.

 

[Woodsman]

...

We got along pretty well for 180 years with religion in our public life; it's only been since the 70's (and the influx of 60s radicals into our education and political systems) and the introduction of "political correctness" that we've started to have all these perceived problems with religion in government. The "Religious Right" didn't form until confronted by such concepts as legalized abortion and removing the most innocuous of prayers from schools and the public. It was those asserting their "right" to not be offended who began this slide, not those who wanted to practice their religion.

Spot on comments.