SSScout 1616 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 So as Scouts we promise (?in an "oath"?) "On my honor..." And we are asked , as citizens, to promise ("pledge"?) allegence to a piece of cloth and a nation... And in some religions, one is expected to declare agreement with certain "beliefs" (the "Nicene Creed" comes to mind). I would posit , for your perusal, The American's Creed: by William Tyler Page I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies. Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918. Differences? Needs? Obligations? Public declarations vs Loyalty Oaths? Swearing BY something (the Bible?) versus AFFIRMING in court? Religious loyalty over legal authority? And what might make a better National Anthem? "America the Beautiful"? "Stars and Stripes Forever"? (yeah, there are words) or the usual... Rote memorization vs questioning and understanding... OOOO my head hurts... Why do we expect our children to learn one and not the other? Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 The sovereign nation of many sovereign states part makes no sense. Sovereignty is usually defined as the supreme political authority. How can there be two supremes? Link to post Share on other sites
SSScout 1616 Posted September 8, 2008 Author Share Posted September 8, 2008 oops... forgot: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/creed.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Eagletrek 10 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 "I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies." It's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to; I'll give it a 95!!!! No really, looks good to me. I'd have no problem saying it but I believe the majority of the folks in the nation may have an issue with the "defend it against all enemies" part. Unlike it was years ago, the average citizen no longer has to serve in the nation's military and it would be interesting to see the public outcry if the draft was re-instated tomorrow. The problem with this nation is we have too many arm-chair patriots and not enough folks willing to put it on the line, BTJMHO. Eagletrek: 20 years U.S. Army, LTC, AR (ret) and currently serving as a DA civilian Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 define enemy? Link to post Share on other sites
Eagletrek 10 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Enemy????? Let's see if we can build a forum consensus. For a start, let's try this: Anyone who attempts to overthrow our form of government, as outlined in the constitution, through overt/covert force or subversion. Feel free to add to or modify. Link to post Share on other sites
nolesrule 58 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 That seems a little vague. Shouldn't citizens have the right to overthrow their own government should it exceed its mandate? And does the new government that takes its place have the right to establish its own constitution or must it be forced to stick with the current one? I'm just talking hypotheticals here.(This message has been edited by nolesrule) Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Nolesrule, the Constitution/Declaration of Independence already make room for that concept and if the Constitution isn't working they may establish a new one. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
nolesrule 58 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Of course. That was exactly my point. I was responding to the definition of enemy as "Anyone who attempts to overthrow our form of government, as outlined in the constitution, through overt/covert force or subversion," which doesn't make room for that exception. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 TheScout says: The sovereign nation of many sovereign states part makes no sense. Sovereignty is usually defined as the supreme political authority. How can there be two supremes? Our "federal" system is based on "divided" sovereignty with the federal government being "supreme" in the areas prescribed in the Constitution and the states being supreme in the other areas. Of course, the dividing line is subject to interpretation, and differing interpretations over time. But the basic concept is one of divided sovereignty, so "sovereign nation of many sovereign states" is basically accurate as far as it goes. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Since 1865, the sovereignty of the state has been reduced to anything left over after the Federal government has had it's say. Basically it no longer has anywhere near the validation it had before 1865. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 "Our "federal" system is based on "divided" sovereignty with the federal government being "supreme" in the areas prescribed in the Constitution and the states being supreme in the other areas. Of course, the dividing line is subject to interpretation, and differing interpretations over time. But the basic concept is one of divided sovereignty, so "sovereign nation of many sovereign states" is basically accurate as far as it goes." If the definition of a sovereign is the ultimate political authority, it can not be divided. There can only be one ultimate, powers can be delegated from one body to another, but sovereignty can not be divided. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 And yet, TheScout, what you say cannot exist, does exist in several countries around the world, including the one you live in: A functioning "federal" system, with divided sovereignty. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Perhaps you are in error. Maybe the states possess full sovereignty and through the Constitution delegate some of their sovereignty to the US through their insturment which is the federal government. Link to post Share on other sites
CalicoPenn 729 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Just to throw another monkey wrench into the debate on sovereignity, in a republican form of government, such as the US's, sovereignity is held by the people - individually. So in the US, the United States is a Sovereign Nation of 50 Sovereign Nation-States collectively composed of about 350 Million Sovereign Individuals. As far as pledges and oaths go, I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe the oath I once took, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, is far more powerful than the Pledge (and no, I don't believe the United States is the "greatest country in the world" - the United States has flaws, like every other country has or had - past, present (and presumably future). I believe we have as much to learn from other countries as we have to teach. I positively abhor false patriotism - the type people wear on their sleeves (or lapels as the case may be). I don't swear oaths on the Bible in court, I affirm. I have internalized the Scout Oath and the OA Obligation, and strive to live by those words daily. The only pledge I'm willing to repeat these days is: I Pledge allegiance to the Earth, and to the life that she provides. One planet, interconnected, with beauty and peace for all. Calico Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now