Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 146 (265249)
12-03-2005 12:27 PM


I received this in an e-mail:
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
On further investigation I found this:
Humor & Whimsy
Theodore Roosevelt indeed wrote these words, but not in 1907 while he was still president. The passages were culled from a letter he wrote to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919, three days before Roosevelt died.
"Americanization" was a favorite theme of Roosevelt's during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against "hyphenated Americans" and the prospect of a nation "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."
He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."
He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called "fifty-fifty allegiance." In a speech made in 1917 he said, "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."
So while the source of the quote is in error the jist of the argument is not.
Now we can talk about the validity of requiring everyone to speak a common tongue in any nation -- and the need for clear communication between people -- (or require other common behaviors) but that doesn't necessarily bear on the isssue of divided allegiances.
This is the focus I want to pursue: can anyone with a divided allegiance be a fully committed american or are they, at heart, ready to forgo {america} for that {other} allegiance at any time?
If there is a conflict between the two which is favored?
Now for the kicker: the divided allegiance I am talking about is based on religion.
America is a secular government with a secular constitution specifically set up to favor no one religion. It is government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Is it possible for a person committed to any one religion -- to the extent that they think america needs to be changed for that religion to be properly recognized -- to truly be an undivided american?
Let the games begin.
Enjoy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 12:28 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 6:01 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 5 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 6:44 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by DorfMan, posted 12-05-2005 11:02 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 146 (265252)
12-03-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 12:27 PM


coffee house

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 146 (265255)
12-03-2005 12:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 146 (265315)
12-03-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 12:27 PM


T. Roosevelt writes:
In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
These sound like grand principles of equality. But they do not correspond to reality.
As a naturalized citizen, I recognize that I am not treated with exact equality with everyone else. According to the constitution, I am forbidded to run for U.S. President. As it happens, I have no interest in running. But the fact that there is such a prohibition demonstrates that equality cannot exist.
Of more serious concern, is what happened to John Demjanjuk. To me, the implication of this case is that an any time somebody could cobble up a bunch of false evidence and use that to have my citizenship revoked and have me expelled.
T. Roosevelt writes:
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
These words have a nice ring to them. But they, too, cannot stand up to analysis. Like it or not, although I am an American, I am an Australian too. There is no divided allegiance. But I grew up in Australia, and that experience cannot be erased. There will always be some sense in which I am Australian.
T. Roosevelt writes:
English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools.
My children studied French in elementary and high school. Roosevelt's statement would seem to question that. Yet surely we need more teaching of foreign language and foreign affairs. America is far too insular.
RAZD writes:
So while the source of the quote is in error the jist of the argument is not.
It seems to me that Roosevelt's speech was jingoistic, and one should be cautious about using it as the basis for policy.
RAZD writes:
can anyone with a divided allegiance be a fully committed american
Although I have concerns about the quoted Roosevelt speech, I do agree that there should not be a divided allegiance.
RAZD writes:
Is it possible for a person committed to any one religion -- to the extent that they think america needs to be changed for that religion to be properly recognized -- to truly be an undivided american?
Committment to a religion need not imply a divided allegiance.
Every American should be wanting the best for America. Religious people are not automatically excluded. As religious people, they are still entitled to want the best for America. And it would be surprising if their religion did not color what they think would be the best. As citizens, with undivided allegiance to America, they are entitled to work within the system in an attempt to change America in ways that they believe will be in the nation's best interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 6:49 PM nwr has replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 8:07 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 51 by DorfMan, posted 12-05-2005 10:34 AM nwr has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 146 (265321)
12-03-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 12:27 PM


America is not set up to be secular.
America is a secular government with a secular constitution specifically set up to favor no one religion.
The mass of confusion is so thick in that statement, it'd be like trying to run track in a field waste deep in molasses. Lemme see where to start.
1. America does not have secular Constitution, nor secular government, in the way you seem to think. Specifically, America has a pro-religion Constitution that bans all prohibition of religious expression and has since it's inception opened every Congress with prayer led by a Christian minister. Does that sound "secular" to you?
2. Being set up to favor no specific church is not the same as being set up to be secular, or favor secularism. Once again, the Constitution favors all religion except is extremely hostile towards attempts to prohibit religious expression, and thus is hostile towards modern secularism.
3. Secularists are the ones taking an unAmerican stance in wanting an undivided loyalty towards secularism which is completely hostile to what defines America. America is defined on the idea that you can have unity as nation amidst factionalism, and therefore all creeds, though different, could work within one nation. The idea we need a unifying creed, which the secularists propose with their form of secularism, is deeply an anti-American and anti-freedom tenet, and a great danger to this nation.
America is set up with the concept that you can hold to any religious creed whatsoever and not have divided loyalties to your nation. Secularists are a throw-back to an earlier era when it was believed you could have only one religion or creed per people, and so they have substituted the secular creed and tried to make it the de facto unifying ideology for the nation, even going as far as to suggest those that disagree are unAmerican, as the initial OP illustrates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:21 PM randman has replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 8:25 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 146 (265323)
12-03-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
12-03-2005 6:01 PM


good point
Every American should be wanting the best for America. Religious people are not automatically excluded.
Good point. Let's just be honest though. If someone thinks their creed or belief system is the one everyone ought to accept and the official beleif system of the government, as the OP claims for secularism, then they are way off the mark and do not understand what it means to be an American.
America is built upon the concept that factionalism can work, and so there is no need to try to make everyone believe the same thing. Those that think we need a creed or an ism, such as secularism, to make America work, haven't clue as to what made this nation great and what the nation was founded on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 6:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:26 PM randman has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 146 (265325)
12-03-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
12-03-2005 6:44 PM


Re: America is not set up to be secular.
randman writes:
1. America does not have secular Constitution, nor secular government, in the way you seem to think. Specifically, America has a pro-religion Constitution that bans all prohibition of religious expression and has since it's inception opened every Congress with prayer led by a Christian minister. Does that sound "secular" to you?
It seems to me that you are confused between "secular government" and "secular society". I agree that we do not have a secular society. But RAZD was talking about a secular government, which we do have.
2. Being set up to favor no specific church is not the same as being set up to be secular, or favor secularism. Once again, the Constitution favors all religion except is extremely hostile towards attempts to prohibit religious expression, and thus is hostile towards modern secularism.
To say that we have a secular government, is simply to say that the government operates on the basis of reason and evidence. It does not in any way require that the government favor secularism within society. Indeed, favoring secularism or any other specific philosophy would be contrary to the requirements of secular government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 6:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 9:58 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 146 (265327)
12-03-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
12-03-2005 6:49 PM


Re: good point
randman writes:
If someone thinks their creed or belief system is the one everyone ought to accept and the official beleif system of the government, as the OP claims for secularism, then they are way off the mark and do not understand what it means to be an American.
I cannot find anywhere that the OP proposes an official belief system.
The whole idea of "the official beleif system of the government" misunderstands the meaning of "government." A government does not have beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 6:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 9:54 PM nwr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 146 (265333)
12-03-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
12-03-2005 6:01 PM


It seems to me that Roosevelt's speech was jingoistic, ...
And insular and a bunch of other elements I don't necessarily agree with.
Of course the e-mail that it originally came in was heavily jingoistic if not racist and exclusionistic. Misquoted or misassigned statements are often abused this way.
Personally I think the more varied a background people have the better. Having returned to the US from many years in Canada I find it a different place ... because of the way it has changed and because of the way I have changed.
Of more serious concern, is what happened to John Demjanjuk.
More serious is the "Patriot" Act that allows the rights of any citizen to be ignored by government.
As a naturalized citizen, I recognize that I am not treated with exact equality with everyone else. According to the constitution, I am forbidded to run for U.S. President. As it happens, I have no interest in running. But the fact that there is such a prohibition demonstrates that equality cannot exist.
There was talk of erasing this so that Arnold could be the next president ... I think it was originally distrust on the part of the founding fathers for naturalized citizens to have undivided allegiance that caused them to put it in.
Personally I have advocated making citizenship easier and more open, as I think our current policy is elitist and exclusionary and does not really reflect the founding principles of america or the ones that made her an icon of freedom and opportunity (one now badly tarnished by the jingoist elitist etc administration).
BUT. The issue I want to address is the issue of divided allegiance. This speech is just the setting of the stage.
Although I have concerns about the quoted Roosevelt speech, I do agree that there should not be a divided allegiance.
Agreed.
Religious people are not automatically excluded. As religious people, they are still entitled to want the best for America. And it would be surprising if their religion did not color what they think would be the best.
Of course they aren't, until the point where they want to impose their religion on others. They are free to behave according to their beliefs within the context of the constitution and the laws of the land.
Do we really need 100% undivided commitment? I think not (we need no more "unamerican" witch hunts eh?), just not so divided that there is a question of which is more valuable to the person, the commitment to america (the ideals, the values of freedom, justice, equality, liberty, to democracy and government of the people by the people for the people etc etc) ...
... or to some other set of values, especially when they are at odds with the american ones.
When push comes to shove are the rights of others more important or some other value system that comes from some other source.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 6:01 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Phat, posted 12-07-2005 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 146 (265335)
12-03-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
12-03-2005 6:44 PM


Randman's revisionism .... false again.
America does not have secular Constitution,
False. The constitution is nothing but a secular document that lays out the way this secular government - of the people by the people for the people - is to be operated.
Secularists are the ones taking an unAmerican stance in wanting an undivided loyalty towards secularism which is completely hostile to what defines America.
Also false, if not totally insulting. People are reacting to the assault on the constitution by specific religious institutions that are trying to convert this country into something it isn't and never was. Many of those people are also people of faith, many are also Christians.
What defines America are the American ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, justice, libery freedom and equality, opportunity without discrimination, whether due to race, religion, sex, age, disability, economic status or country of origin.
Those ideals may not always be recognized in actions, but they are the ones that define America, these are the ones recognized in the official documents ... like the constitution that established this country and the declaration of independence that launched this country.
America is set up with the concept that you can hold to any religious creed whatsoever ...
As long as you don't try to impose that creed on anyone else. For they are equally free to follow whatever beliefs they want to follow in their personal lives. It is a freedom equally valid for all of us.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 6:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 9:53 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 146 (265344)
12-03-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
12-03-2005 8:25 PM


Re: Randman's revisionism .... false again.
Bare assertions don't add up to much. You claim all creeds are accepted but at the same time suggest that religious people must have a divided loyalty. I think any objective person can see through your stance for what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 8:25 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 146 (265346)
12-03-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
12-03-2005 7:26 PM


Re: good point
To state the government and the Constitution is secular is indeed declaring secularism as the official belief system. I suggest you reread the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:26 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 10:25 PM randman has replied
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 10:39 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 146 (265347)
12-03-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
12-03-2005 7:21 PM


Re: America is not set up to be secular.
But RAZD was talking about a secular government, which we do have.
Wrong, not the form of secularism RAZD is talking about. We could just as easily say the government is a Christian government because the government allows all religions as Jesus taught. RAZD claims the Constitution which bans prohibiting the free exercise of religion as "secularist." It's not secularist in the sense of being anti-religious or even neutral on religion in general. It is a pro-religious and pro-religion document.
To say that we have a secular government, is simply to say that the government operates on the basis of reason and evidence.
That's good for a hoot. When has the governmemt ever operated on the basis of reason? The government operates based on the political will of the elected officials, government agencies, and limits imposed by the Constitution. Sometimes reason and evidence have something to do with it, and often it's the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 7:21 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 12-03-2005 10:51 PM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 146 (265354)
12-03-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
12-03-2005 9:54 PM


Randman's bare assertions.
randman, msg 11 writes:
Bare assertions don't add up to much.
Perhaps then you shouldn't post bare assertions.
... is indeed declaring secularism as the official belief ...
Secularism is not a belief system. From wikipedia:
Secularism is commonly defined as the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society. It is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and plays a major role in Western society. The principles of separation of church and state in the United States and Lacité in France draw heavily on secularism.
Of course the fact that the United States was formed during the age of enlightenment might have something to do with it too.
Another bare assertion debunked.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 9:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 1:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 146 (265357)
12-03-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
12-03-2005 9:54 PM


Re: good point
To state the government and the Constitution is secular is indeed declaring secularism as the official belief system.
Not so. Apparently you are confusing "secular" with "atheist". But they are not the same at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 12-03-2005 9:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 1:05 AM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024