Would you take the pledge?

[rwjefferson]

@Revtim

Sure. But since you sent it to Barack Obama, who is an adult, what was the point of him signing it?

Signing?

@rwjefferson

I sent it to him because he gave an eloquent speech.

[Miller]

@rwjefferson

Squink: Does my response to BobLibDem satisfy your questions?

Miller: Same question to some of your comments.

No, else I would not have posted them after reading your response.

Anything out of the quotes is simply expository on my account. It is not part of the proposed pledge.

So your pledge is just the preamble with “I think this is nifty” added to it?

I did have some difficulty with those three lines.
The “Gold Standard” is another way of saying the “highest possible standard”.

Historically:
To determine the just value of gold, merchants would use a balance. They would assay that gold on a touchstone to determine its purity.

I’m familiar with the cliche. Wording it as “standard of gold” sounds incredibly artificial. Might as well throw in some thees and thous while your at it. It comes across as trying to sound “old fashioned,” in hopes that it will be misinterpreted as “deep.”

How would you say it?

I wouldn’t.

The question is not: whether or not to have a pledge. We already have one; that’s a different debate.

I don’t have any use for that pledge, either.

Can you explain again what Barrack Obama has to do with this? I’m still confused on that score.

[rwjefferson]

@Brutus

There are situations in which the state will deny a person their life or liberty (and therefore presumably ‘pursuit of happiness’ as well).

Those situations actually involve protecting other citizen’s lives and liberties. Justice is the balance between these conflicting rights.

We have scads of people in prision. Does this mean that ol’ Barak should try to get them all freed?

I would hope that those that have not harmed or threatened another would be freed. I surely wish someone would try to free them. I would certainly respect ol’ Barak even more if he took up the cause.

[aside]If your “crime” is a vice, you should not be in jail in the first place. Vices are not based on DoI (Declaration of Independence) principles, they are based on religious intolerance.[/aside]

I am rather against the idea that we cannot deprive our enemies of their life.

A person that takes or threatens a life puts his own at risk. Our priority is to protect ourselves and those that would honor our rights.

We insist on these rights for ourselves. We offer them to others, but will not insist.

‘The American Religion’? A bit goofy, if you ask me.

That was for the zealots that would insist their religion should be the basis for our laws.

rw

[Revtim]

@rwjefferson

Signing?

Do’h! I meant reciting or taking, of course.

You said you sent it to him because “he gave an eloquent speech.” I guess I still don’t see the connection. Is it that you want him to incorporate into a speech, and perhaps have it be adopted by others? And hence have it instruct children?

[rwjefferson]

2sense - Sorry, I am not familiar with your other posts.

I agree that most revolutionaries did not necessarily honor the ideals in the DoI (except when convenient). I agree that these ideals have been ignored if not perverted from before day one, even by the people that so eloquently wrote them. But that is not the fault of the ideals and does not mean we should not honor them.

@2sense

Me for one.

Does this work better: …our Idealistic Forefathers…”?

“We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident-“
I hold these Truths to be Self-Evident.
I am saddened if you are saying you do not.

Terrorists and Tyrants also believe in liberty.

Terrorists and Tyrants only believe in liberties for themselves, not for others. That is contrary to the DoI. Do you not understand the difference?

@2sense

To condemn people as enemies of liberty without any idea of what freedom means to them is ignorant and arrogant. …Did you really swallow the line that the terrorists attack America because they hate freedom? That’s for the rubes, my friend.

I do not know where this interpretation of my comments originates. Please re-read my posts, I’m not sure you understand my position.

By definition, Self-Evident Truths do not need sophisticated arguments; except maybe against sophists.

Thanks for the Welcome and the wish for luck. I’ll watch out for the sophists.

rwj

[Atticus_Finch]

Jefferson, your proposed pledge is very vague. What’s wrong with just swearing to uphold the Constitution, as he would presumably do if he were to gain office? (BTW, anyone know exactly what senators swear to, if anything?)

By swearing to uphold the Constitution, he would effectively take into account the values expressed in the DoI. Such a pledge would be a lot more specific about what he believes, and what he would do to protect these beliefs.

[rwjefferson]

@Miller

No, else I would not have posted them after reading your response.

Okay. Try this.

@Miller

I disagree with this. Children learn far more by watching us than by listening to us. Instead of reciting words at them, just act as you think your pledge requires you to act, and hope they copy you. Oaths, in general, are pointless. Either your the sort of person who does the right thing, making the oath redundant, or your the sort of person who does what he wants to regardless of the consequences, making the oath meaningless.

@rwjefferson

It is the living of the pledge that has true meaning… This pledge has more meaning if it is said quietly or silently and with understanding.

@Miller

And any politician worth his salt could lawyer his way out of an oath like the one in the OP without even breaking a sweat.

@rwjefferson

I will disagree with that. One cannot “honestly” take this pledge and then turn around and support a law to deny equal rights.

It is not honest to “lawyer” you way out of anything”.

I hoped that helped. I’m not sure what else I can say.

@Miller

So your pledge is just the preamble with “I think this is nifty” added to it?

No. The pledge is key. The “I think this is nifty” was added to enlighten and illustrate and show off my eloquence.

@Miller

I’m familiar with the cliche. Wording it as “standard of gold” sounds incredibly artificial. Might as well throw in some thees and thous while your at it. It comes across as trying to sound “old fashioned,” in hopes that it will be misinterpreted as “deep.”

What do you want from me? I admitted I had trouble with that part. “Standard of Gold” complimented “Balance of Justice” and “Touchstone of Truth”. It is called “poetic license”. I even asked for your help. Instead I get this:

@Miller

I wouldn’t.

Thanks for nuttin’ pal.

@Miller

Can you explain again what Barrack Obama has to do with this? I’m still confused on that score.

Barack gave a speech at the Democratic convention. I interpreted that speech to mean he understands what I’m talking about.

Peace

rwj

[Miller]

@rwjefferson

It is not honest to “lawyer” you way out of anything”.

No, it’s not. We’re talking about politicians, here. When did honesty enter the equation?

That’s the point: it’s a great sentiment, I suppose, but that’s all it is: a sentiment. Either Barrack Obama (or any other politician you care to name) is genuinely working for the betterment of the country, and is already acting in accordance with your oath, or he’s a cynical opportunist who wouldn’t think twice about breaking it. So, what good does your oath do, exactly? What’s the point?

[rwjefferson]

@Revtim

Do’h! I meant reciting or taking, of course.
You said you sent it to him because “he gave an eloquent speech.” I guess I still don’t see the connection. Is it that you want him to incorporate into a speech, and perhaps have it be adopted by others? And hence have it instruct children?

Close enough.

rwj

[rwjefferson]

[

@lambchops

Jefferson, your proposed pledge is very vague. What’s wrong with just swearing to uphold the Constitution, as he would presumably do if he were to gain office? (BTW, anyone know exactly what senators swear to, if anything?)

By swearing to uphold the Constitution, he would effectively take into account the values expressed in the DoI. Such a pledge would be a lot more specific about what he believes, and what he would do to protect these beliefs.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the Constitution falls short of securing equal rights. Remember Slavery and Women’s Suffrage? Dred Scott, Jim Crow? Prohibition?

A Tyranny of the Majority is still Tyranny.

No, we’re not there yet. It is the nature of government to usurp rights. Even our own Constitution must be held accountable to these ideals.

rwj

[Atticus_Finch]

Your own constitution, seppo! I kid, I kid.

So why swearing allegiance to the DoI a better thing than swearing allegiance to the Constitution? If the Consitution still “falls short”, and doesn’t take into account modern values such as equal rights, doesn’t that go double for a few vague allusions to rights and justice lifted from a 200-year-old rant about King George?

As for your examples, all five of them (slavery, women’s suffrage, the Dred Scott decision, the Jim Crow laws, Prohibition) have been taken into account by various amendments to the Constitution, for example Amendments 14, 15, 19 and 21. So right now, they’re not relevant at all and don’t help your argument any. Have you read the Constitution in the last century or so? I think you might be pleasantly suprised with all the stuff about “equal protection”.

[2sense]

@rwjefferson

I agree that most revolutionaries did not necessarily honor the ideals in the DoI (except when convenient). I agree that these ideals have been ignored if not perverted from before day one, even by the people that so eloquently wrote them. But that is not the fault of the ideals and does not mean we should not honor them.

You misunderstand. While some plantation owners did show recognition of the disparity between their rhetoric and their behavior ( Patrick Henry comes to mind ) for many in the revolutionary generation there was nothing contradictory between establishing liberty and owning slaves. Their view of liberty allowed what you and I would consider the hypocrisy of denying freedom to African-Americans. They didn’t fall short of their ideal, they just started with a different ideal than you or I.

Does this work better: …our Idealistic Forefathers…”?

I would say rather that they were politicians and like politicians in any age they said what people wanted to hear or what they wanted people to hear. The “natural rights” view was all the rage then as the Enlightenment spread to the British colonies. As I said the one thing it’s good for is self justification and the American colonists were looking for a justification for their resistance to Mother England. It was in their interest to see themselves as victimized by the homeland and so it is no surprise they found a way to believe it.

“We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident-“
I hold these Truths to be Self-Evident.
I am saddened if you are saying you do not.

You might as well be sad about it since your view doesn’t provide any framework for resolving our disagreement. If I disagreed with another moral relativist about certain rights we could examine our differences and perhaps reach a compromise since our “rights” are man-made and based on practical considerations. You are sad we don’t agree. For my part I congratulate myself on avoiding a conception of the world that doesn’t allow the comparison of rights in any meaningful way.

Terrorists and Tyrants only believe in liberties for themselves, not for others. That is contrary to the DoI. Do you not understand the difference?

The difference is relative. This why I say you are condemning people as enemies of liberty without any idea of what freedom means to them.

“Liberty” isn’t one absolute and definite thing. It means different and changing things to different people. From the inside of one of these belief structures everything seems natural but looking at them from the outside one sometimes sees startling contradictions. One example that comes to mind from Foner ( though it may be from his A Short History of Reconstruction ) is with the freedmen after the Civil War. It was important to black men to have their women working not beside them in the fields as in slavery times but in the home. They were eager to be independent of whites but that didn’t stop them from subordinating their women. That doesn’t mean that the former slaves were the enemies of freedom.

*By definition, Self-Evident Truths do not need sophisticated arguments; except maybe against sophists. *

Actually it is the sophisticated arguments that need the “Self-Evident Truths” to start from. The problem isn’t basing an argument on unproven assumptions, that’s how every argument starts. The problem is not taking into consideration that these assumptions are arbitrary and not some Truth. In fact, when anyone capitalizes the word “truth” I like to get a tight grip on my wallet because they are likely to try to sell you some hogwash. Humans have found many little truths but so far no one has been able to prove any absolute greater Truth. How could they since there must be unproven assumptions to start from?

[AHunter3]

I’ve always liked the phrasing of the Declaration:

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…

Given a bit of syntactical update for gender-neutrality and removal of unnecessary Theistic reference, it would make a good foundation for a pledge, I suppose, but why stop there? The best is yet to come:

…and when governments become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish or to destroy it, providing new safeguards for their future security and happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established will not be abolished for light and transient reasons; and history has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.

(from hazy memory, I’ve probably butchered some of it but that’s the gist of it).

In other words, to the government: you serve at your pleasure — you don’t have an inherent right to exist, and don’t you forget it, because we won’t.

[AHunter3]

Crap. Stupid bloody typo.

“To the government: you serve at OUR pleasure”, of course.

[rwjefferson]

[

@AHunter3

I’ve always liked the phrasing of the Declaration:
Given a bit of syntactical update for gender-neutrality and removal of unnecessary Theistic reference, it would make a good foundation for a pledge, I suppose, but why stop there? The best is yet to come:
(from hazy memory, I’ve probably butchered some of it but that’s the gist of it).
In other words, to the government: you serve at your pleasure — you don’t have an inherent right to exist, and don’t you forget it, because we won’t.

BINGO!!!
However, I was looking for the greatest economy in expressing the central idea. I prefer to emphasize the goal, rather than the consequence of failure. But certainly, the consequences of failure are also Self-Evident.

In spite of sophisticated arguments otherwise, it is still clear to me that most, if not all, wars, rebellions and strife center around one group holding liberties at the expense of another; even if the liberty in question is “just” the Pursuit of Happiness. The relationship between loss of liberty and strife holds even at the smallest scale.

Sorry 2sense I also find it to be Self-Evident that sophisticated arguments are not as reliable as experience or experiment. Although I am willing to change my mind, I will need more than sophistry. You must understand that I have suffered tyrants.

Until now, the only answers to the Question “Would you take the pledge?” have been either “no” or “it depends”.
AHunter: you have the honor of being the most positive with “I suppose”.

I have been the only one to actually state it for the record. Damn I’m lonely.
My List of “Who would not take the Pledge?” now stands at 4 and counting.

1. Tyrants
2. Terrorists
3. Bullies
4. Sophists

If you observe these people in action, you can learn to recognize their traits. Watch out for them, as they do not necessarily honor your equality. Even if you think they accept yours, they can turn. I speak from experience.

My List of “Who would say the pledge but not take it (to heart: as in live it) now stands at 7.

1. Children
2. Half-wits
3. Parrots
4. Liars
5. Politicians & Lawyers (joking). I need help. MillerWhat is a broader classification for people that would “lawyer” their way out of something?
6. Cowards
7. Criminals

Hopefully my list of “Who would take the pledge?” will include:
1) Patriots
2) Statesmen
3) Other Optimists
So the questions remain: Would you take the pledge?

And I do mean you, and I do mean live it, not just say it.
And of course, the original question: “Barack Obama, would you?”
rwj

[Atticus_Finch]

Jefferson, please answer my post #31.

With regard to your listing of those who would not take the pledge, do you really think that it is a good argumentative tactic to call anyone who doesn’t agree with you terrorists, bullies, half-wits etc? Can you see how this just pisses off the ten or so participants in this thread with legitimate arguments? You’re working against yourself here.

Besides this, isn’t it contrary to the spirit of freedom that you seek to encapsulate in your pledge to slander those that politely disagree with you?

[Miller]

@rwjefferson

My List of “Who would not take the Pledge?” now stands at 4 and counting.

1. Tyrants
2. Terrorists
3. Bullies
4. Sophists

You left out Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[rwjefferson]

@Miller

You left out Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My List of “Who would not take the Pledge?” now stands at 5 and counting.

1. Tyrants
2. Terrorists
3. Bullies
4. Sophists
5. Religious zealots.
   Thanks

rwj

[Dog80]

@rwjefferson

My List of “Who would not take the Pledge?” now stands at 5 and counting.

1. Tyrants
2. Terrorists
3. Bullies
4. Sophists
5. Religious zealots.
   Thanks

rwj

Now there’s nobody to take that bloody Pledge of yours

[2sense]

@rwjefferson

Sorry 2sense I also find it to be Self-Evident that sophisticated arguments are not as reliable as experience or experiment. Although I am willing to change my mind, I will need more than sophistry. You must understand that I have suffered tyrants.

No offense here RW but this seems to me like you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant rather than think about my arguments and their implications. If so, you came to the right place. The SDMB is devoted to fighting ignorance. Perhaps we can cure you of that disease.