packsaddle

littlebillie, the Hebrew calendar is currently in the year 5763. Not bad!

DeMann,

The answers to most of your questions inevitably will be conjecture based on the best evidence or knowledge in hand at the time the conjecture is made. There is a book, "Vital Dust" by Christian DeDuve that provides, in my mind, the best single effort to bring all the elements into a common framework. The author is a Nobel Prize winner so I have to admit he probably did a better job than I could. If I suggested a specific answer, say, that the first organism had the same base pairing as all life on earth (and this isn't very controversial), it could form the basis for a long discussion (argument) that could be fun and illuminating, or boring. Predicting the past is fun to think about but I see no way to achieve absolute certainty.

1. No one knows for sure, nor likely ever will.

2. Maybe not, might have been RNA, but still don't know for sure. There might be life forms like them today but not likely in an aerobic environment.

3. Not clear the connection between God and reproduction.

4. Don't know. Are you aware that persons have tried to measure the mass of a soul? (if you think this is absurd, I agree) You may want to carefully and meticulously define "soul" first. We are experimenting with xenobiotic transplants because we are so very close, genetically and physiologically, to some other animals (know anyone with a pig's valve in his heart?). The differences are beginning to blur for some persons and I find this fascinating to observe.

5. The Bible question. To answer this completely you would need to know how the original selections were made, which books to include, which to exclude...originally. And why the inclusion or exclusion? That would help some and the story is spellbinding. I am still learning. Beyond that, the question is yours to answer.

The problem with needing to have such absolute answers is that anyone can get those answers. They just aren't likely to agree with anyone else who thinks they have the answers. My inability to answer such questions does not, however, lend support to anything else. There is an old logical trick called "reductio ad absurdum". In this, a logical argument is carried to its extreme and if it is absurd at that point, it is considered to have less validity. In the original application, such would be considered evidence in favor of the alternative argument. In some sense, creationists try to use this type of argument...failure of one idea in some area supports the alternative. The problem here is that there is absolutely no comparable scientific or experimental support for the alternative and "reductio ad absurdum" is today mostly used to reject arguments, not to support otherwise unsupportable arguments. The strategy is employed by students to reject dress codes, for example, and other examples are numerous, my children have ruthlessly exploited my sense of fairness using this method.

In the case for creationism, I think there is only one basis, faith. And that is OK. The trouble arises when we realize that the Judeo-Christian creation does not agree with other religious beliefs for which there are far more numerous followers. Who is right? Does this imply that someone is wrong? Are they also inferior? Bad? Evil? The perceived conflict with evolution is (or should be) one-sided. Scientists are not (should not be) trying to refute religious ideas. They don't have the tools or the evidence and religious persons can ignore them anyway (but they'll probably gratefully accept those pig valves, if needed). I too, have heard scientists make statements as if they have the last word in truth. You must realize that in the peer-review world, ideas duel in ruthless battle and sometimes scientists get cocky. They are human, believe it or not. Each time is an invitation to knock that chip off and in science the invitation is open. Just be prepared for the arena because all of them will be itching to knock yours off as well. Not friendly? Maybe not but it beats inquisitions and crusades. And any idea that survives must have something going for it...until I can find that hidden flaw. Ed, yes, it IS just a theory. Feel better now?

Freud argued that ignorance is a poor basis for belief. ScoutParent's statements could be used to support an argument that ignorance is the ONLY basis. Nevertheless, I find quaint sympathy with some of ScoutParent's shrill prose. There are individuals in all walks of life, science included, that have such strong interest in certain ideas that they take on what might seem to be a religious belief. If this applies to persons who are interested in evolution, for example, ScoutParent is correct in identifying such as a source of weakness. This weakness cuts both ways, though, and it also applies to those who thoughtlessly cling to religious dogma with little or no understanding of that dogma. The desire to uncritically fill a knowledge void with anything that seems to work is an option exercised with prejudice towards many views. It merely requires a tolerance of personal ignorance or an inability to recognize such.

Darwin recognized this profoundly because he was a practiced experimental scientist. For example, he was the first to experimentally support the idea that plant growth is directed by the meristematic tissues. He did not originate the idea of gradual change through antiquity. Rather, such ideas had emerged much earlier from several sources, notably Jean-Babtiste de Lamarck (1744-1829)[acquired characteristics fame]. Evolutionary theory did not end with Darwin either, for even he didn't have it right. His idea of blended inheritance was clearly wrong and he was soundly criticized. The theory was much strengthened with the rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's laws of inheritance (thus beginning modern Genetics) because Mendel's discovery provided the very mechanism that Darwin could not fully explain. Scientific theory rarely if ever relies on a single person or study but rather continues to be tested until it is discarded or improved, incorporating new discoveries as they may provide better explanations. The idea does indeed evolve, thank you very much. Aristotle's explanation of fossils as being remants of animals that died in the flood, for example, has not survived this scrutiny (although some in this forum may still ascribe to that notion).

Because Darwin was a divinity student from 1827 until he took the naturalist position on the Beagle (the voyage started in 1831), he was quite aware of the importance of these ideas to the theological world. He was aware of Galileo's fate (the Church finally recognized their mistake a few hundred years later, just a few years ago...the earth is NOT the center of the solar system, I suppose this is still open for dispute as well) and it was only the push provided by A.R. Wallace's independent, almost identical paper that caused the release of his theory. The theory built on numerous ideas such as uniformitarianism (not a religion, by the way), and the law of superposition. The foundation of the theory is rooted in classical geology, much of which was developed by clergymen who, in my view, were among the only persons with sufficient spare time to pursue such studies. (It has often amused me to think how the clergy and the church was largely responsible for the development of the idea that some persons of faith so vocally object to today - another delicious irony for my collection.)

But ScoutParent, unintentionally I think, was aiming squarely for its saggital crest, and then missed the barn. Evolutionary theory has, in fact, provided precious little practical benefit through development of technology, etc. Its primary contribution, as stated by Dobzhansky, is as an organizing theory without which the field of biology would merely be a collection of arcane specialties. Rather, numerous fields of biology and other disciplines have contributed to the ills listed by ScoutParent and these abilities were developed independently from pursuit of evolutionary theory. If ScoutParent wanted to indict the theory for its worst application, such could be found in what is poorly termed, "social Darwinism". Here, persons with little understanding of evolutionary theory use their simpleminded notions to apply "it" to social systems...in fact they use it to try to justify their hateful prejudices, for example, the notion that certain races are inferior. The notion of 'survival of the fittest' has been applied by monsters in WWII Germany, Cambodia, and elsewhere (I have heard it said, for that matter, in our funding policies for education and welfare). The evil is in us, not in an idea. The technologies give us new abilities, we decide to apply them in evil ways or not. At the root of most of these, I believe, is ignorance...and the clinging belief that ours is the absolute truth - without tolerance for an alternative. This is hardly my view of God's intent, ignorance IS a poor basis for belief. And so I see a great good in learning, questioning, and building on ideas, good science included...because it does ultimately illuminate all creation. If anyone wants to see evil, start with a look inward and once satisfied, expand elsewhere. Have a nice day.

"Apropos of the origin of man I see no ground at present for pinning my faith to one theory or another. My purpose in mentioning the matter was simply that I might have an occasion

of claiming my right to follow withersoever Science should lead and over and through whatever dares to stand in the way. After all it is as respectable to be modified monkey as

modified dirt." T.H. Huxley, January 30, 1859

This argument has been argued in other forums, obviously for a long time. I want to reassure DeMann that any conflict between faith and science is needless. Faith clearly does not rely on science for its existence or its development. It merely requires ideas and persons who believe them. They need not articulate their reasons although when I recite the Apostle's Creed, for example, I understand fully those reasons. Science on the other hand simply does not address faith at all. It is incapable of addressing faith because it lacks intellectual tools to do that. This is not to say that science is in conflict with faith or religion although such seems to be a popular misconception...on both sides.

ScoutParent said that "Science is a man made construct to attempt to explain things." OK, no conflict. In this manner, a large number of empirical observations have been subjected to critical examination, sometimes experimental. Evolution is the only theory that can organize those observations so that they make sense in the view of the scientist. Any honest scientist will be glad to critically examine alternative theories that are based on the same observations. Magic need not apply. And a person will see if they really examine the development of the various fields of science, alternatives have been subjected to this examination and rejected as inconsistent with observations.

The problem with 'science versus religion', in my view is that science accepts uncertainty. Clearly contained in previous posts is evidence that persons of faith are usually uncomfortable with uncertainty (Amazingly some individuals think their ideas are absolutely right). Science is one way to organize our uncertain world and make useful predictions (for that matter to invent the wonderful technologies that ALL of us cannot live without). However, scientific knowledge, to one degree or another, remains uncertain and always open to criticism or disproof. Constantly subjecting scientific ideas to critical examination makes them stronger if they survive. This ruthlessly critical approach eventually leads to general acceptance of certain ideas among scientists (not all scientists, though, because healthy skepticism lives on). Can you imagine a similar process in religion? Evolution is one example of a theory that has been subjected to such critical examination in as much as the component observations have been critically examined. It remains a work in progress.

The comprehensive nature of Evolutionary theory makes it difficult to articulate a simple single hypothesis for test. Instead such has been performed for numerous component hypotheses. Those that have not been tested remain just as they started, and scientists argue about some of them with great vigor. A similar evaluation could be applied, say, to Cell Theory. Obviously, cell theory is less likely to be viewed in conflict with religion but it has been constructed under identical conditions as evolutionary theory.

Incidentally, in the last 20 years, the advances of cell biology, molecular biology and genetics, and biochemistry/biotechnology ought to have received similar objections by persons of faith, but for some reason they didn't. Folks, the genie is out of the bottle there for better or worse, and I, for one, find it exciting.

On the other hand, faith-based ideas are completely unavailable to such critical examination, as they should be. Miracles cannot be repeated experimentally, and creeds are just that. This is not a weakness, simply the way it is. However, as such, faith-based ideas cannot be erected as rational alternatives to scientific theory...because they cannot be subjected to logical, critical examination. If a person believes that a scientific theory (whether it be Galileo's, or Evolution) is in conflict with their belief, then I suppose in their mind the conflict is real. But to be fair, they should make a sincere effort to understand the development and REAL meaning of the theory to honestly conclude there is a conflict. DeMann has this opportunity and the great thing about our country and time is that such examination will not lead to the fate that befell Galileo and Vavilov. firstpusk listed some good URLs and I hope these and other sources are viewed with a desire to learn and understand, without a sense of conflict.

This is an interesting question. My troop works under the by-laws of the chartering organization, a church in our case, but now I am not so sure it is the best way to proceed. I was under the impression that the chartering organization took legal and financial responsibility for their scout units. Am I wrong?

hippychik42, My deepest sympathies. The kind of behavior you described fits neither the Oath nor the Law. Working for change or for reform within any system is tricky and requires great care...and sometimes you really have to hold your nose. You evidently touched a tripwire. However, to use an analogy to John Muir, soaked with rain and covered with dirt, you are now completely free to pursue this any way you see fit. BSA may have erred in that they now have no leverage over you whatsoever. However, from what you describe, there may have been actual crimes committed and this possibility should be investigated. In the long run, getting the crooks and liars out of Scouting will benefit the boys. If the organization cleaned themselves up, it would set a positive example. Good Luck

Our troop does something similar. However, we try to schedule a parallel campout at the same time and place as the Pack family campouts. Then we invite the Pack to locate their Webelos adjacent to the Troop and we work with them to introduce the patrol method. In the end the Cubs usually have a great time picking on the Boys and there are lots of laughs while learning the ropes, so to speak. The younger Cubs, who are sort of like free-range chickens (eating from all sources), infiltrate the whole process and it is a joy to watch. It is also a good lesson for the older boys who are not yet in official positions of leadership...what is in store for them soon.

ScoutParent,

Simple, the problem would still be there. It is preferable to revisit what I believe are very good stated ideals...and then walk the walk.

Zorn:

"BSA is not a government entity and does not have to be tolerant of dissent."

I stand corrected. I thought the Constitution applied to things outside government. I thought that an organization chartered by Congress would be an exemplary advocate for constitutional rights. I was wrong. The same Supreme Court that you complain about agrees with you on this. However..

For adults to exclude each other or practice hateful behavior toward each other is our reality and I consider that sad enough. For those adults to be willing to hurt innocent boys, even a little, just because they want so badly to get at each other is reprehensible. It is in violation of a number of points of the Scout Oath and Law and certainly a violation of Scout spirit as well.

From the Handbook, 1st Class requirement:

"Visit and discuss with a selected individual approved by your leader (elected official, judge, attorney, civil servant, principal, teacher) your constitutional rights and obligations as a U.S. citizen."

Rights and obligations, that is, unless you are dealing with BSA. The term 'hypocrisy' comes to mind.

Merlyn, Yes I have seen the Nature survey but I am speaking from more of a personal view in that every atheist with whom I have discussed these things seemed to be quite firm in their knowledge. Really, in order to absolutely reject something, whether existence of God or something less, requires strong conviction. I would think this true for any absolute position held by thoughtful persons. However, I would tend to agree with the inflated percentage of agnostics if it includes persons who are simply not sure, clearly not the same thing though. Remember, the disciple Thomas also was not sure and he was eventually shown.

I see nothing inherently wrong with asking the question or critically examining the answer (unless the Colonel is in big hurry). However, as I remember, the Gnostics were persons who placed little value in the material world and who believed that truth could be attained through faith alone (gnosis). The Agnostics held the view that the existence of God was in doubt or else probably unknowable (not really rejection of the idea, though). I see why agnostic and atheist are often confusedthey are confusing. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to rely on labels to tell us all that we need to know about other persons?

ZORN, I get Columbus Day off, but if you like you can think of it as Canadian Thanksgiving Day. I also get Armistice Day as well as MLK Day. Is there really a Casmir Pulaski Day? If you ever meet Merlyn, I would like to observe.

For your information, BSA is also intolerant of persons who merely openly state that they disagree with policy, an implicit rejection of the first amendment entirely. Again, I have never fully understood why we do this if our policy is so well-founded.

SCOUTPARENT: I truly did not realize I was quoting Eco (the words were mine, really). However, just think about thisyou have never seen us together, weve never spoken to you at the same time-----Naaaaah!

Zorn, your statements must be answered. I have tried to understand the source of such views but long discussions with my friends who say similar things have never been very satisfying. Without dignifying the tone of your comments and assuming the best, I suggest you refer to a book by Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" (ISBN: 0393317552), for reasonably objective treatment of topics close to your views. If your views are simply based in prejudice (as some of my friends freely admit), the exercise will do no harm. Otherwise it could be of some benefit.

TJHammer, Go for it!

Merlyn, One comment you made earlier about atheism and scientists was troubling. While I think I understand your intent, the scientist at best tries to practice a disciplined skepticism. They may invent or adopt an idea but then try their best to disprove it through rational or empirical tests called experiments. If they fail, they then qualify the idea saying that it is conditionally accepted, until good evidence to the contrary is found. As you might imagine, lawyers hate to put good scientists on the witness stand.

Some persons believe that if applied to matters of faith, this approach is indicative of atheism. However, atheism is another belief system in which the practitioner KNOWS that there is no deity. In contrast, scientists by their nature should be unable to adopt such an absolute position but rather reject it as being untestable. Science simply cannot address, examine, or in any way criticize matters of faith. St. Augustine said that faith has no purpose if not to transcend reason. That is consistent with the view of the scientist although the lay public often does not understand the difference. Individual scientists are therefore free to adopt personal belief systems as best they can...just like the rest of us. Why each individual chooses the way they do is probably beyond public explanation.

tjhammer, ahem, it is still the same amendment(#1). BSA is in conflict with this amendment. There are individual rights and rights that are exercised collectively as groups, sometimes exactly the same rights. Corporations have rights similar to those of individuals and the examples go on. In some sense, because a group has a different set of abilities from an individual, there are some differences in rights that are granted to them. But the basics (like speech) are still the same, good thing too.

Zorn, local governments around here sponsor Scottish Highlander days and pour serious money into St. Patrick's Day. Do you want to ban all of them? In one town they even have a Red Neck festival called "Spittoono" (lots of fun by the way) but I'm not sure if local gov't does much more than provide traffic control. It is OK for you to be offended by any of these. The argument that one is preferred over others is more difficult. Arguments about displays and signs are fun but there are also truly important issues that relate to the same principles in questions. A Jewish family moved into the area from Minnesota. Their boys were good students who enjoyed school activities. The mom was a substitute teacher. However, when the father objected that his sons had to pray to Jesus during each morning devotional, his sons were cut from the team, his wife no longer called to substitute, the boys made to sit in the hallway during the devotional. True story. I seriously doubt that this is the way you would want the majority to rule, I could be wrong. Incidentally, they were ultimately forced to move away. Later, a more forceful individual gave the school board a good legal spanking and schools now devote their time to academics.

"Or if the memorial was initiated by referendum, I think it would even be appropriate for the township to make the purchase."

In my community, if such referendum passed and public money was proposed for any religious display specific to one faith (the one mentioned before was a manger scene), the minorities would successfully argue that the local government was endorsing that faith. Their argument would be that the majority, by virtue of larger population size, simply rolled over all the minority faiths. They would win their case. However, if any of the faiths wanted to use the local school building after hours for a private meeting, they could have their displays for the duration of the meeting, no problem. Alternatively, if private funds are used for the display, and it is erected on private property (church campus, for example) there is obviously no problem, even if it is deeply offensive to the minorities. The same would be true for the minorities although as I mentioned in an earlier response, in my community such minorities would probably "know what's good for them" and they would refrain from being offensive. In this country minorities and majorities have identical rights and responsibilities and I think this is a good thing. But the perception by some majority members seems to be that when a minority exercises their equal right, it is somehow wrong.

At the risk of making things worse, I remind everyone that BSA does exclude, and for nothing more than exercise of the first amendment right of free expression. That being the case, I suppose it is scoutlike to act likewise.

Rocky and Bullwinkle, of course! I used to catch their reruns between classes. Rooster7 has another nice response and I support his outlook on this. In response to an earlier comment, I DO know some Jews and Moslems who are offended by Nativity Scenes on courthouse lawns, for example. My Buddhist and Hindu friends haven't said anything to me about it. They understand private displays on private lawns but the public buildings like local schools sadden them. But they, being small minorities where I live, bite their tongues in resignation. I think the old phrase, still applicable, is: "They know what's good for 'em." At least that's what the good-ole-boys used to say about these things not too long ago. And that designation between 'us' and 'them' is precisely what I think is a problem. There is a town nearby that a few years ago (about 35) had a sign at the edge of town that said, "N***** don't let the sun set on you in ". In the minds of a minority, however it may be defined, there may not be much difference between then and now as long as they are identified as separate and excluded.

ScoutParent,

Always a pleasure. (Heavy sigh) Oh well, I guess I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do. But I try to speak up when I have something to say and no one has ever thought that I am bigotted or closed-minded. I think the reason may be that I am willing to listen to the other side and if I see merit to an argument, I try to incorporate the logic of that argument into my view. I think this is preferable to mindlessly clinging to views that I know have less merit. Or to put it differently, how can I improve my ideas if I never put them to the test or if I never allow others to show me where I am wrong? Just because I strongly disagree with someone does not mean that I can't learn from them. As for 'pagans, atheists, and satanists' perhaps some of the perceived discrepancy is because they are such a tiny minority and therefore find it easier to gain media attention. I don't consider this a problem with the minority but rather with those of us who buy the products that the media sells...while holding our attention with words from the minority. When I speak, almost nobody cares.

As for the allusion in the postscript, it was in reference to a book by Umberto Eco, I suppose I was being too obscure, sorry.

On a pragmatic note, though, until Merlyn is kicked out by the Forum master, or whatever, you are stuck with him. Might as well have some fun.

ScoutParent,

Thanks, I stand corrected. You saved me from having to wade through old messages. I often daydream during 20-minute prayers, too. Oops, I probably wasn't supposed to admit that.

But don't you relish the opportunity to hear the other side and get your chance to present your best argument in opposition? Doesn't Merlyn's presence here represent the very essence of the strength of our system? I think he has good arguments to make and he articulates them well. Besides, if our logic can't stand such scrutiny, then we are hardly strengthened by closing the door and hiding in the closet. I think it is best to get ideas out for open discussion, even if some of us do it while holding their noses.

P.S. You get the firewood for the stake and I'll start rubbing two sticks together.

Merlyn and Everyone,

I think I am observing a free exercise of religious expression. We are obviously not being denied this right. I agree with Merlyns point that no-one, neither individuals nor governments, should dictate to anyone, through statute or tradition, what their beliefs must be. We do have public religious expression. People freely decide every day to congregate and form new churches or not to do so, to dissolve old ones, to stand in public and shout their convictions if they choose to, and to move from faith to faith as their personal interests direct them. And I do not believe that the individuals in this forum would advocate that a group of people, by virtue of their majority status, should have the right to suppress similar free expression by minority faiths. Or am I wrong about this? Do you, as the majority view, want to suppress alternative views? There are no more Plymouth Rocks on which religious minorities can land in their Mayflowers. Those brave persons came to this country to achieve the freedoms that we enjoy, not to form a dominant majority at the expense of the freedoms of others.

However, for poor Bullwinkle who does not understand the English language, I revisit the 1st Amendment full text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zorn, it doesnt say establish. The word establishment has several alternative meanings in my dictionary. Most of them are not verbs. From the dictionary...1. something established: as A: a settled arrangement; especially: a code of laws B: ESTABLISHED CHURCH (hey this is the actual text from the dictionary) C: a permanent civil or military organization D: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff E: a public or private institution and blah, blah, blah.

The final alternative is the one Zorn alludes to: the act of establishing or the state of being established. This ambiguity of the meaning of this word and many others is among the reasons we have so much fun exercising our 1st Amendment right, arguing these topics. But Zorn, please notice that I have not placed suspicion on your ability to read.

Sorry Bullwinkle, Supreme Court not withstanding, you really don't understand the English language. Just who is this Bullwinkle person anyway? For that matter who is Boris?

P.S. Merlyn, I seem to have missed the part about you being atheist and communist and against Scouting principles of faith. I shudder to imagine of what next you will be accused.

Rooster7, great reply! But I am not sure what you mean by 'the left'...in another place or time it could mean the opposite of what you mean, if you know what I mean.

Venturer2002, I want to inform you that slavery and deceit in any form are wrong...do you really doubt this? I really can't accept that they are good under any circumstance and I don't understand why anyone would advocate such. Jefferson's intent seems clear to me, preserve as much individual liberty as possible while obeying the two great commandments (St. Mark 12:30-31) as well as the golden rule. That he formed his ideas during that time in history is remarkable and I wonder who today would be his equal. That we tolerate the nonsense that is expressed in this forum for example, mine included, is a testament to the value and power of Jefferson's legacy to all of us. Packsaddle

I agree with OGE and Bob about this. The requirements are objective where specific activities must be completed. They are subjective (subject to personal judgement) where such things as spirit are concerned. Boys are not all the same and CAN'T be expected to adhere to the same standard of 'spirit' although they CAN all be expected to know how to tie a square knot. To state this a little differently, a boy who begins scouting at a high level of spirit can progress nicely with little or no increase in spirit. Another boy who begins with little or no spirit can greatly improve without matching the level of the first boy. I ask, which boy has made the greater achievement of spirit? The two boys should be judged as individuals for their personal achievements and as long as they showed progress within their programs (and met the objective requirements), I would pass both of them...on spirit. Know the boy. Packsaddle

Acco40, Don't give the media too much credit. They merely choose the information to present...we form our own images based on that information. And those images are as diverse as we are. Just look at all the arguments in this thread! I was in China a couple of years ago and in spite of the best efforts of the central government, I observed widespread capitalism and efforts at individual expression (also greed and the other stuff that haunts humanity). And remember, we troop leaders also impose discipline on our troops as well, don't we? OK,...we TRY to impose discipline on our troops. OK,...we dream about imposing discipline on our troops. Oh well.

NJCubscouter, I agree. Also, ACCO40, I suspect that Jesus (having advised his disciples to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) would probably shrug off such an oath as unimportant. And I would agree. Oaths of allegiance are as personal as prayers...one person viewing it as personally profound, another as profane, another merely with disinterest. There is no way to assess what an idea really means to a person except through their actions, not their words. This situation has some relation to the hypocrits who try to 'hedge their bets' by attending church and participating in religious rituals with no real basis in belief. The real meaning and importance of an idea is an individual matter that cannot be imposed by forced recitation or forced participation. Interestingly, many of us tend to look down on countries where such oaths (or other practices) are forced on the public by dictators, and then we look down on our own people who exercise their individual choice not to participate in such oaths or who oppose forced participation...if they happen not to agree with us.

BubbaBear, Uuuhhhhh....thanks, ...I think. Packsaddle

BubbaBear and CubsRgr8, Some more followup. I would like to think that if we learn to live together in acceptance of our differences as children, then we will be able to do the same later as adults. My experience has shown this to be possible. Actually I kind of enjoy the differences. Prejudice and intolerance seem to be learned early, almost inherited. By the way, I took a photo of a nearby American Flag (in reference to the 'indivisible' part of the pledge). If there is some way to post it I will. The file is 60K, not too large. Packsaddle