This thought has been ringing in my head for a few years now: the dilemma of the nation is just how to allow both Liberty and Justice for All! I tend toward justice, others tend toward liberty - and you have hit a nail on the head here.
This thought has been ringing in my head for a few years now: the dilemma of the nation is just how to allow both Liberty and Justice for All! I tend toward justice, others tend toward liberty - and you have hit a nail on the head here.
The radical right has a notion of "liberty" as meaning their personal and collective right to do whatever they want, no matter how it may infringe on or harm the life or dignity of anyone else. "Religious liberty" is therefore their right to impose their religious choices on everyone else - be that insisting that states can make abortions illegal, or insisting that states cannot impose public health measures that treat religious gatherings the same as other gatherings.
I feel we need to call out this fascistic notion. What else would we do, Joan? But we need to name it for what it is - a hierarchical attempt to force a religious on others. A major tenet of America, and democracy, is ... freedom of religion.
I feel is vital to label the right’s attempt to force a view or morality as what is is - fascistic.
As a practical matter, I don't know, other than public discussion and supporting expansion of the Supreme Court.
The settlers of at least some of the original English colonies made the trip in order to be the ones in charge of establishing religion. There were multiple religions in the colonies, and eventually they agreed to leave each other in peace. One of the clear virtues of the writers of the Declaration and the Constitution (with Bill of Rights) is that they made it clear that religion is NOT the business of government...
Well, a bit more nuanced than that, I think, but I agree. It was actually more a desire to protect religion in general (and the right to choose not to be a believer), by keeping any religion or sect from establishing itself as a state religion. Fewer wars that way, and more attention paid to what they thought was the real provence of government: enabling acquisition of wealth.
I’m interested in hearing more, Margaret The Artist, as to how this phrase rings for you.
The two are wedded, to me, simply because they are a part of our “Pledge”. Here’s a bit more about "Liberty and Justice for All"
from Wikipedia:
"Included in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase is supposed to represent the idea that each citizen is equal under the law. It represents the concept that every American is free and not to be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” as indicated in our Bill of Rights”
I’ve long felt that this statement ought to be a core tenet of progressivism. The fact that it is from our “Pledge” to our democracy elevates the phrase to a moral certitude, if in this country there ever would be one.
Oh yes! They *should* be wedded and working as a team, the two concepts supporting and balancing society. It seems that in our current polarized country, the two are bifurcated. Divorced. One side screaming about their liberty, the other crying for justice. 2020 in a nutshell. I am hoping Biden can bring us back in balance. Some more tidbits about that pledge (love the juxtaposition of the Christian Socialist celebrating Columbus Day):
Pledge Timeline
September 9, 1892: The pledge is introduced in the magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of a program to celebrate Columbus Day in schools across the country. The words were written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, and read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all."
June 14, 1923: The National Flag Conference, sponsored by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changes "my Flag" to "the flag of the United States of America," in part to ensure that recent immigrants had the US flag in mind and not the flag of their nation of origin.
June 22, 1942: Congress formally recognizes the pledge and includes it in the federal Flag Code.
December 22, 1942: Congress changes the official manner of delivery to placing the right hand over the heart; the previous stance, one hand extended from the body, was too reminiscent of the Nazi salute. The "Bellamy Salute" had directed that "the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag."
June 14, 1954: President Eisenhower approves the congressional resolution adding the words "under God" to the pledge. The Knights of Columbus and other groups, as well as Eisenhower himself, had lobbied for the change.
So glad you included the history of the "pledge", the wording of which was originally very different. The so-called "flag code" is not a legal thing, btw: merely an advisory thing. It has no legal ramifications. You can salute or not, say the pledge or not. As a Quaker, I do neither (though I stand in respect to the people I am with if the circumstances are formal). The pledge is not one of our founding documents, and should not be confounded with them. It is about a piece of cloth that is a symbol with varying meanings to different people.
This thought has been ringing in my head for a few years now: the dilemma of the nation is just how to allow both Liberty and Justice for All! I tend toward justice, others tend toward liberty - and you have hit a nail on the head here.
The radical right has a notion of "liberty" as meaning their personal and collective right to do whatever they want, no matter how it may infringe on or harm the life or dignity of anyone else. "Religious liberty" is therefore their right to impose their religious choices on everyone else - be that insisting that states can make abortions illegal, or insisting that states cannot impose public health measures that treat religious gatherings the same as other gatherings.
I feel we need to call out this fascistic notion. What else would we do, Joan? But we need to name it for what it is - a hierarchical attempt to force a religious on others. A major tenet of America, and democracy, is ... freedom of religion.
I feel is vital to label the right’s attempt to force a view or morality as what is is - fascistic.
As a practical matter, I don't know, other than public discussion and supporting expansion of the Supreme Court.
The settlers of at least some of the original English colonies made the trip in order to be the ones in charge of establishing religion. There were multiple religions in the colonies, and eventually they agreed to leave each other in peace. One of the clear virtues of the writers of the Declaration and the Constitution (with Bill of Rights) is that they made it clear that religion is NOT the business of government...
Well, a bit more nuanced than that, I think, but I agree. It was actually more a desire to protect religion in general (and the right to choose not to be a believer), by keeping any religion or sect from establishing itself as a state religion. Fewer wars that way, and more attention paid to what they thought was the real provence of government: enabling acquisition of wealth.
I’m interested in hearing more, Margaret The Artist, as to how this phrase rings for you.
The two are wedded, to me, simply because they are a part of our “Pledge”. Here’s a bit more about "Liberty and Justice for All"
from Wikipedia:
"Included in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase is supposed to represent the idea that each citizen is equal under the law. It represents the concept that every American is free and not to be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” as indicated in our Bill of Rights”
I’ve long felt that this statement ought to be a core tenet of progressivism. The fact that it is from our “Pledge” to our democracy elevates the phrase to a moral certitude, if in this country there ever would be one.
Oh yes! They *should* be wedded and working as a team, the two concepts supporting and balancing society. It seems that in our current polarized country, the two are bifurcated. Divorced. One side screaming about their liberty, the other crying for justice. 2020 in a nutshell. I am hoping Biden can bring us back in balance. Some more tidbits about that pledge (love the juxtaposition of the Christian Socialist celebrating Columbus Day):
Pledge Timeline
September 9, 1892: The pledge is introduced in the magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of a program to celebrate Columbus Day in schools across the country. The words were written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, and read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all."
June 14, 1923: The National Flag Conference, sponsored by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changes "my Flag" to "the flag of the United States of America," in part to ensure that recent immigrants had the US flag in mind and not the flag of their nation of origin.
June 22, 1942: Congress formally recognizes the pledge and includes it in the federal Flag Code.
December 22, 1942: Congress changes the official manner of delivery to placing the right hand over the heart; the previous stance, one hand extended from the body, was too reminiscent of the Nazi salute. The "Bellamy Salute" had directed that "the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag."
June 14, 1954: President Eisenhower approves the congressional resolution adding the words "under God" to the pledge. The Knights of Columbus and other groups, as well as Eisenhower himself, had lobbied for the change.
So glad you included the history of the "pledge", the wording of which was originally very different. The so-called "flag code" is not a legal thing, btw: merely an advisory thing. It has no legal ramifications. You can salute or not, say the pledge or not. As a Quaker, I do neither (though I stand in respect to the people I am with if the circumstances are formal). The pledge is not one of our founding documents, and should not be confounded with them. It is about a piece of cloth that is a symbol with varying meanings to different people.