Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-21-2002, 10:11 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/politics/21PLED.html" target="_blank">Revised Pledge for AmeriCorps to Include God</a>

Quote:

The executive director of the alumni group of AmeriCorps, Michael J. Meneer, warned of concerns that the new pledge was "militaristic and religious."

"Respondents were concerned that the new pledge would have the effect of dividing people rather than uniting them," Mr. Meneer said last week in a letter.

Congressional Republicans say the new oath is virtually identical to that required of all federal employees, including members of the armed forces and Peace Corps volunteers. Moreover, they note, the new phrase "so help me God" is optional.

What an idea. Religion dividing people.

<a href="http://www.svcc.cc.il.us/americorps/page8.html" target="_blank">The current pledge</a>

Quote:

I will get things done for America -to make our people safer, smarter and healthier.

I will bring Americans together to strengthen our communities.

Faced with apathy, I will take action. Faced with conflict, I will seek common ground. Faced with adversity, I will persevere.

I will carry this commitment with me this year and beyond.

I am an AmeriCorps Member. And I'm going to get things done.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7599-2002Nov18.html" target="_blank">From the Washington Post</a>

Quote:

Bush's plan to expand AmeriCorps, the government's community service organization, has made little progress in Congress, where the program faces opposition from Bush's own party. But the parent of AmeriCorps, the Corporation for National and Community Service, is not standing idle. It has rewritten the AmeriCorps volunteers' pledge.

The new pledge omits the earlier promises to "take action," "seek common ground" and "persevere" in the face of adversity. Instead, it adds a promise to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" without "mental reservation or purpose of evasion." And it ends with, "So help me God."

The revised pledge has provoked an angry response from former volunteers and a letter of protest from the National AmeriCorps Association, which called the change "fundamentally unnecessary." One former volunteer wrote in a posting on the association's Web site that "Bush is trying to turn a do-good, liberal institution into a youth army for his maniacal wars against foreigners and our very own people."

Layman · 11-21-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/politics/21PLED.html" target="_blank">Revised Pledge for AmeriCorps to Include God</a>

In other words, it's going to be more like the Loyalty Pledge federal civil servants and employees have been taking for years. Sounds a lot like the one I took as a federal law clerk.

And most of my colleagues, though very liberal, did not equate pleding to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as joining an "army for [Bush's] maniacal wars against foreigners and our very own people." Of course, Clinton was President at the time, so maybe they thought they were joining an "army for Clinton's maniacal wars."

PandaJoe · 11-21-2002, 04:51 PM

Militaristic and Religious. What a wonderful combination!

Toto · 11-21-2002, 05:08 PM

If you check out Americorp's <a href="http://www.lifetimeofservice.org/Content.cfm?content_id=306" target="_blank">Pledge Page</a>, you will see a number of thoughtful comments in opposition to the changes in the Pledge. The Washington Post pulled out one of the less well thought out ones.

11-21-2002, 07:33 PM

Believe it or not, but this isn't the only pledge that the religionists are trying to change. Not satisfied with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, they've started a campaign to add "born and unborn," as in "...with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."

We have to stop them before it's too late.

JohnR · 11-22-2002, 12:06 AM

Quote:

In other words, it's going to be more like the Loyalty Pledge federal civil servants and employees have been taking for years

I worked for the Army Corps of Engineers and when I was hired I didn't have to take any pledge. No swearing in, just "can you start on Monday?"

Vorkosigan · 11-22-2002, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnR:

I worked for the Army Corps of Engineers and when I was hired I didn't have to take any pledge. No swearing in, just "can you start on Monday?"

We had to do this pledge for Peace Corps, the same one for Fed Employees, swear to uphold the Constitution, etc. You can forego the "So help me God" part, of course, the Peace Corps being run by the sane. I was proud to take the oath, and it really meant something to me.

Vorkosigan

Babylon Sister · 11-22-2002, 05:09 AM

I've been a federal employee for nearly 20 years and have never taken or been asked to take or sign any kind of loyalty oath.

Layman · 11-22-2002, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnR:

I worked for the Army Corps of Engineers and when I was hired I didn't have to take any pledge. No swearing in, just "can you start on Monday?"

Can't speak for you, but I was a federal employee and was required to take such an oath. As were all of the incoming law clerks in my class and our successors.

Perhaps it has something to do with the level of the employee or the responsibilities of the position.

Layman · 11-22-2002, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
If you check out Americorp's <a href="http://www.lifetimeofservice.org/Content.cfm?content_id=306" target="_blank">Pledge Page</a>, you will see a number of thoughtful comments in opposition to the changes in the Pledge. The Washington Post pulled out one of the less well thought out ones.

So in other words you are rolling your eyes at my response to what you actually posted, rather than what some people said on some other website that no one linked to?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-21-2002, 04:51 PM	#3
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	Militaristic and Religious. What a wonderful combination!

11-21-2002, 05:08 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you check out Americorp's <a href="http://www.lifetimeofservice.org/Content.cfm?content_id=306" target="_blank">Pledge Page</a>, you will see a number of thoughtful comments in opposition to the changes in the Pledge. The Washington Post pulled out one of the less well thought out ones.

11-21-2002, 07:33 PM	#5
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	Believe it or not, but this isn't the only pledge that the religionists are trying to change. Not satisfied with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, they've started a campaign to add "born and unborn," as in "...with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn." We have to stop them before it's too late.

11-22-2002, 05:09 AM	#8
Babylon Sister Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wyoming Posts: 894	I've been a federal employee for nearly 20 years and have never taken or been asked to take or sign any kind of loyalty oath.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.