Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state

[Jose Fly]

A guy closing his eyes and saying 'thanks?' Ain't buying it. Neither are you....

Except that's not what happened in this case. Had the coach merely closed his eyes and said "thanks", we wouldn't even be discussing it.

You are just playing the silly game. A guy saying thanks, or a guy bowing to Mecca doesn't hurt you one bit. "IF" you contemplated it, you'd not be a jerk about it like the guy/gal that complained in this case. It was mean-spirited complaining and stupid.

Except that's not what happened. A government employee, while acting as a government official, went out of his way to make a very public display of his beliefs, and did so in a manner that could be coercive to the players.

In my state, they even list those good traits and suggest teachers use their discernment when such comes up in curriculum, even using those religious observances 'for' the reinforcement of those good citizenry skills.

Unless you're more specific, we can't really discuss that.

Hogwash, the man was fired. You are incorrect

??????? Being fired does not mean you, or your religion, have been "eradicated".

I disagree that 'those' people are 'reasonable.' Voluntary is voluntary.

Obviously that's a failed argument.

And? So I'm the only one there? Congress shall make NO law.....

So you'd be in a situation where the government actively promotes and celebrates Islam, while refusing to do the same for Christianity. I'm surprised to see you be so comfortable with that.

Nope. It is NOT your or any government's business to tell me when and when I cannot pray.

When you're working for the government they sure can. I'm not sure where you got this idea that government policy towards employees and their religion is "anything goes", but you're sorely mistaken.

In fact, after the game is already over? People already driving home? None-ya... You have a 'right' to walk out of the stadium.

He was still on the clock and his players were still there.

Nope, no coercing. Again you have a right to walk out on your own two feet. The right to start a frivolous lawsuit? :nono: No, I'll stand up and say not.

You can do that all you like, but the fact remains your argument is a failed one. The coach is a government employee who has an influential relationship with students, so when he makes a deliberate spectacle of his faith he is putting students in a situation where they have to decide whether or not to go along.

Public school students have a right to participate in school activities without the government putting them into a situation where they have to make religious choices.

I don't care what it promotes if it isn't against the most loving things.

Again, what constitutes "loving things" is subjective. A coach from the Church of Satan may believe it's "loving" to tell his players that God doesn't exist. But somehow I don't think you'd be ok with that.

At this venture, we are talking about someone simply thanking God (or anybody) for a safe game, and thanking God (or anyone) for safety, etc.

Why did the coach have to make such a public spectacle of it? Why couldn't he have just closed his eyes and said a silent prayer to himself? Why did he have to go out the middle of the field immediately after the game and kneel?

The only purpose for such a thing is to make a public display.

Is it really your intention to shut down any and all good expressions of thanks?

Of course not.

In the same way it doesn't offend me, it shouldn't offend you either.

It's not a matter of offense, it's a matter of government promotion of religion in a manner and setting that is coercive to students.

Secular atheism is equally offensive. I'd rather see about ANY religious celebration than 'no' celebration because that doesn't support any value.

Not everyone is limited to such binary thinking. It is possible to appreciate neutrality for what it is.....neutrality.

The vacuum left in the wake of denial leaves us all worse off. It is why we have Columbines and more every new year: There is NO VALUE left in the wake of complaint. There is no 'this is wrong' taught in society any longer. I don't care if a Satanist comes and says "First do no harm! then do as you will..." That quote is right out of their writings. There is no opposition to that sentiment that would benefit society to shut off. It is brain-dead to think such is promoting Satanism. It is promoting society. The ACLU is just inane and the judges who allow those mindless suits are just as inept. It is NOT promoting Satanism, it is promoting 'doing no harm.' I disagree with the last half, but not so much that "Do no harm" should come off the walls. It isn't a poor quote. We have grown stupid, imho, to teach 'nothing' of values and morals. That is dumber, more inept, and unconscionable.

Your opinions are noted.

They did.

Where? Show where the founding fathers specifically stated that we are to be a non-secular state.

 

[rexlunae]

Threads like this are a wonderful reminder that, for many religious people, even in the majority, they can't help but feel insecure. Your religion is 80% of the population? Not good enough! It's got to be 100%. It's got to dictate everything! Everyone else has to pay Jizya or convert.

Well, keep in mind, if you withdraw from the secular consensus in this country, the system that protects your religiosity and my irreligiosity, you invite an attack on your religion. If we're going to live in a theocracy, I'm going to insist on one that's to my liking. You haven't seen or heard of persecution yet.

Or we could just leave each other alone.

 

[patrick jane]

Threads like this are a wonderful reminder that, for many religious people, even in the majority, they can't help but feel insecure. Your religion is 80% of the population? Not good enough! It's got to be 100%. It's got to dictate everything! Everyone else has to pay Jizya or convert.

Well, keep in mind, if you withdraw from the secular consensus in this country, the system that protects your religiosity and my irreligiosity, you invite an attack on your religion. If we're going to live in a theocracy, I'm going to insist on one that's to my liking. You haven't seen or heard of persecution yet.

Or we could just leave each other alone.

Prayer in sports has always been a part of the game, at all ages. It so happens that they are mostly Christian prayers, why should that suddenly be unacceptable?

 

[Town Heretic]

Prayer in sports has always been a part of the game, at all ages. It so happens that they are mostly Christian prayers, why should that suddenly be unacceptable?

The way you can know that's not a good defense is when you realize the other things that would be covered by it, like slavery. Tradition isn't an argument and prayer isn't being outlawed. But you shouldn't have a coach, or a principle or the teacher in your kids classroom leading it.

 

[patrick jane]

The way you can know that's not a good defense is when you realize the other things that would be covered by it, like slavery. Tradition isn't an argument and prayer isn't being outlawed. But you shouldn't have a coach, or a principle or the teacher in your kids classroom leading it.

That last sentence seems very un-American to me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Prayer in sports has always been a part of the game, at all ages. It so happens that they are mostly Christian prayers, why should that suddenly be unacceptable?

No one is saying there can't be any prayer by anyone at sporting events.

 

[Town Heretic]

That last sentence seems very un-American to me.

Then you probably didn't understand one of the words you're using. Because nothing is less American than pressuring kids to conform. If you want your kid to get religious instruction at school send him to a religious school. The nuns are waiting.

And man are they handy with rulers.

 

[Lon]

No coach was...Kennedy was disciplined for deciding to disregard the district holding on point, after initially going along with it. His punishment? He was put on paid leave until his contract expired and it wasn't renewed.


Disagreed for the reasons stated prior, regarding agency and coercion.

No coercion BUT to desist from practicing what congress shall make no law for doing.
Fancy legal dances notwithstanding. The government is wrong.

They don't have to, since the country is still mostly Christian. It follows that most displays will be Christian ones and that most coaches will be in the Christian prayer group.

Doesn't matter. I'll ask "Jose Fly" (not his real name) if celebrating Christmas with his family was a benefit or a hindrance to his life. He won't be able to debate this point, neither you. Celebration of human values is always a benefit to the US.

Once you open that door what you want won't really control anything.

Exactly. "No Law." If a religion doesn't attack anything of our nation, leave it completely alone.

 

[Angel4Truth]

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~ Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~ 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~ Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~ Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
~ Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~ Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/

You do know those quotes are about one christian denomination, trying to be in front of another and have nothing to do with lack of religion or other faiths?

They wanted universalism, which back then, meant all christian denominations were equal (
Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc..

It meant something different then, then it does today.

 

[Town Heretic]

No coercion BUT to desist from practicing what congress shall make no law for doing.
Fancy legal dances notwithstanding. The government is wrong.

No, he isn't being stopped from praying. He was prohibited from joining in or leading prayer with his players. And the reasons for that are good ones. They're the same sort that keep a teacher from leading my son in an Islamic prayer, by way of illustration. It's the thing that makes coercion, intimidation, or other forms of pressure to conform to a particular less likely.

Doesn't matter.

Of course it does. I'm reasonably certain if Christians were in the pronounced minority on the topic most of the same voices decrying this treatment would be on the other side of it, outraged (as so many were when Islam made itself an object of study in some classrooms) by the intrusion into their decision about what religious instruction their children receive.

Exactly. "No Law." If a religion doesn't attack anything of our nation, leave it completely alone.

But it isn't leaving religion alone. It's promoting it, and a particular form of it, in the person of its agent. And that it should not and cannot do.

 

[rexlunae]

Prayer in sports has always been a part of the game, at all ages. It so happens that they are mostly Christian prayers, why should that suddenly be unacceptable?

Would you be willing to participate in a prayer that I designed, knowing that I do not share your religious perspective? Would you want your kids to be pressured to do so, and stigmatized if they don't?

You are only ok with this because you see yourselves as gaining the greatest advantage from it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Would you be willing to participate in a prayer that I designed, knowing that I do not share your religious perspective? Would you want your kids to be pressured to do so, and stigmatized if they don't?

You are only ok with this because you see yourselves as gaining the greatest advantage from it.

Who forces prayer just by having one?

Apples and apples please. And no, you arent forced to pray just because others are.

If a graduate gave thanks to allah, in their speech and offered the idol a prayer, it wouldnt bother me one bit, unless they were insisting i do it too, they have a right to their beliefs and as long as they aren't wielding a machete and shouting allahu akbar, whatever,

Atheists are some whining babies.

 

[Lon]

Except that's not what happened in this case. Had the coach merely closed his eyes and said "thanks", we wouldn't even be discussing it.

So taking a knee is an exception? :nono:

Except that's not what happened. A government employee, while acting as a government official, went out of his way to make a very public display of his beliefs, and did so in a manner that could be coercive to the players.

:dizzy: "could be." We don't make laws regarding what 'could' happen. It obviously didn't happen and really "couldn't" happen. Nobody can make you a Christian. You are proof of that (not even your wife can do that for you ).

Unless you're more specific, we can't really discuss that.

You are a big boy, look up WA state RCW's and classroom guidelines. It is all public record.


?

?????? Being fired does not mean you, or your religion, have been "eradicated".

Talking about the ACLU et al. Everything they do has eradication as goal. Eventually we'll be a Muslim-sentiment where we can't share our faith without going to jail. Many of us will go to jail because of conviction. No government can take that away. I'm tired of the inane attempts. We will have a revolution when that happens, probably my kid's, kid's kids.

Obviously that's a failed argument.

You don't share 'obvious' with the rest of the population so your particular brand of 'obvious' is peculiar and all your own. You are the odd man with already obvious and disgruntled tendencies. We all expect you to be the odd man out already. We don't spend our time on atheist websites being the odd-man-out disgruntled member. That man is you.

So you'd be in a situation where the government actively promotes and celebrates Islam, while refusing to do the same for Christianity. I'm surprised to see you be so comfortable with that.

Nope. All of them. I'm comfortable with a government that doesn't silence religion. Bowing to Mecca and saying 'thanks' is different than killing infidels. The last Muslim I was in extensive contact with sold me a car, didn't behead me. He had the Quran next to his desk. He didn't bow to Mecca while I was there, but I wouldn't have really cared and would have thought he was sincere, rather, if he had, when one of his cars sold.
A coach on a field bowing toward Mecca after a game? All well and good. It is HIS expression of HIS religion that he is guaranteed the right to AND that Congress shall make no law to block.

When you're working for the government they sure can. I'm not sure where you got this idea that government policy towards employees and their religion is "anything goes", but you're sorely mistaken.

No I'm not. It is my right regardless if you feel comfortable giving it to me or not. It is not only guaranteed by the Declaration and Constitution, it is God-given. You can't take it away, even if I work for all the people (Government is NOT a separate entity, it is by and for and made up of 'the people).

He was still on the clock and his players were still there.

Incorrect. He is 'salaried.' It means 'no-clock.' Have you ever coached?

You can do that all you like, but the fact remains your argument is a failed one. The coach is a government employee who has an influential relationship with students, so when he makes a deliberate spectacle of his faith he is putting students in a situation where they have to decide whether or not to go along.

No more than the Muslim bowing to Mecca makes me Muslim lain: It is inane to think this minimally as if we are all brainless mindless lemmings. It is wrong-headed and dumb. Did celebrating Christmas year after year harm you at all? Nope :nono: In fact, you are better and closer to your family because of it. You are the poster child against such an unfounded fear. It is merely an offense of 'something you don't like.' Worse? It is horrible. You are hating on a celebration, a thanksgiving. All of the US and ACLU should be ashamed for such wicked sentiments. It is evil, wrongheaded.

Public school students have a right to participate in school activities without the government putting them into a situation where they have to make religious choices.

:chuckle: No. This is stupid, frankly. They have no religious choice they have to make and government pushed nothing. Government is to have a 'hands-off' approach, not block who a person is, or the expression of who they are. Such is our rich heritage, or a Muslim's heritage. We are not secular clones. We ARE different. The loss of our cultures has been WHY there are Columbines. They are kids who have been stripped of identity and are now only 'secular purposeless versions' of what used to be people. That is the ACLU's and Judicial system's fault. They were inept to bow to these ugly complaining lawsuits.

Again, what constitutes "loving things" is subjective. A coach from the Church of Satan may believe it's "loving" to tell his players that God doesn't exist. But somehow I don't think you'd be ok with that.

Of course he wouldn't believe that. He "couldn't" believe that. I've met them. They don't believe that. Again, inane fears drive stupid laws.

Why did the coach have to make such a public spectacle of it? Why couldn't he have just closed his eyes and said a silent prayer to himself? Why did he have to go out the middle of the field immediately after the game and kneel?

Realized I share some of your concern. It was politically motivated at that point. HOWEVER, UNLESS there was a rule clearly given not to run into the middle of the field when he was first hired, then this became a religious attack on his rights by default. The problem is the retroactive and vindictive nature of such.

The only purpose for such a thing is to make a public display.

As I agree, it was political BUT it isn't the 'only' reason. Something of his faith or understanding of it, pushes that point. Rather than saying 'no' the judge could have spent a bit more time reviewing what are laws are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do. Such may be the one of the reasons for the demonstration in the first place.

Of course not.

:up: I said 'display' so good on you!

It's not a matter of offense, it's a matter of government promotion of religion in a manner and setting that is coercive to students.

Yes, but this wasn't coercive. If the coach made kids stay or made prayer in the locker room mandatory, I'd be on page.

Not everyone is limited to such binary thinking. It is possible to appreciate neutrality for what it is.....neutrality.

All atheist nations have persecuted any show of faith to death. Muslim nations persecute Christians to death. Any of them you want to move too offhand? Or do you enjoy these United States mostly and always has been, of Christians? Is there a 'benefit' to Christian expression and values for you?

Your opinions are noted.

Cause/effect. You can't ignore them. My 'opinion' matters not.

Where? Show where the founding fathers specifically stated that we are to be a non-secular state.

"In God We Trust...we are endowed by our Creator...one nation under God" etc. etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm comfortable with a government that doesn't silence religion.

So am I...as long as the government gets it right:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...f-Government&p=5078908&viewfull=1#post5078908

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

Who forces prayer just by having one?

The teacher looking directly at you as you don't participate. The kids around you who notice you aren't a part of the group. There are enough pressures on children in school.

Because that's how it works. That's how human beings are built and that's how a good impulse can lead to bullying and the wrong act in the hands of an individual who desires to use it, or a group who feels informed and empowered by it, maybe even for what they believe is in your best interest.

Apples and apples please. And no, you arent forced to pray just because others are.

No, said, the officer, you have a right to remain silent. But when you are we're going to assume you're hiding something.

Atheists are whining babies.

That sort of simplified thinking is precisely why this is an issue, but you don't see it.

 

[patrick jane]

Would you be willing to participate in a prayer that I designed, knowing that I do not share your religious perspective? Would you want your kids to be pressured to do so, and stigmatized if they don't?

You are only ok with this because you see yourselves as gaining the greatest advantage from it.

Christians rule the world !!!

 

[Lon]

But it isn't leaving religion alone. It's promoting it, and a particular form of it, in the person of its agent. And that it should not and cannot do.

Government is interfering. If he doesn't use it to proselytized, there is no foul, at least here in WA. Our own RCWs encourage any expression of mutual values. "Thanksgiving" is an expression of mutual values. Next, and again, it depends on the purpose AND that purpose better be CLEARLY shown for such conviction in a court of peers, not 3 misguided judges making poor pronouncements on their own. It is time the justice system be reeled in. They serve us, we don't serve them. When that happens, it is time as a people and nation to tell them to knock it off. They are not an aristocracy or oligarchy. We are a Republic, the power of the entire nation lies only in our decisions and votes. A hand-me-down directive from the Judicial system is an abuse of and to those rights and powers.

 

[Lon]

That sort of simplified thinking is precisely why this is an issue, but you don't see it.

No, she sees it. It really is the difference of our expectation. I 'expect' a state that see I have 'unalienable' rights, and further 'irrevocably given by my Creator." Such is a 'deistic' state at the VERY least, not a secular one. So no, we see what juyou are saying but very much disagree with a secular state and believe very strongly our nation has NEVER been secular nor is it preferable. A secular state will not and cannot carry the high values that a deist/Christian state will. It is an issue. We both agree with you on that. We are standing on the opposite side of the issue. A secular state CANNOT serve us nor does it have a desire to do so. I pray one day that will finally click and you'll understand why. I yet think it the one thing that must change in your thinking and honestly HAS to change in your thinking. There is no such thing as 'blind' justice. It never existed nor is it a very good system of justice. It frankly, isn't justice. It trounces on the wrong people sometimes because of it.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, she sees it.

Well, that would make it worse. "Atheists are whining babies" is emblematic of a certain over generalized mindset that promotes bullying and the sort of relentless group pressure that I was speaking to.

It really is the difference of our expectation. I 'expect' a state that see I have 'unalienable' rights, and further 'irrevocably given by my Creator."

All rights are balanced against your neighbors in exercise. That's why you can't stand up in church and let loose with a stream of profanity.

Such is a 'deistic' state at the VERY least, not a secular one. So no, we see what juyou are saying but very much disagree with a secular state and believe very strongly our nation has NEVER been secular nor is it preferable.

You have to be able to distinguish between the government and the social order. The former is and the latter needn't be.

A secular state will not and cannot carry the high values that a deist/Christian state will.

In terms of moral compass and expectation relating, if a people are God fearing the law is redundant. If they aren't the law is a locked gate on a burning building.

A secular state CANNOT serve us nor does it have a desire to do so.

History teaches us that a religious state will only serve a fairly narrow band of people. Even purely Christian states persecuted those within its own belief system for variances. A religious state is like a communist state, pure in intention, rarely less than horrible in execution.

Our state serves your right to believe and worship. One way it does this is by removing itself from the endorsement of any competing notion. It was never intended to serve our particular faith as an instrument.

Government is interfering.

The moment it promotes one over the other it is interfering, establishing. And that it simply can't be allowed to do.

If he doesn't use it to proselytized, there is no foul

It is inherently that very thing. That's what I was speaking to. When a room full of young boys sees the authority among them do X then X becomes the pressure point for the group.

We are a Republic, the power of the entire nation lies only in our decisions and votes.

No, that's a pure democracy. A Republic reserves protections, rights that can't be taken away. Among those protections is the bar of our state to establish a religious order for itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

So taking a knee is an exception?

An exception to what?

"could be." We don't make laws regarding what 'could' happen.

??????????? We do all the time. A government employee at the Social Security office isn't allowed to make racist comments because they could be offensive to someone. You have to wear a seat belt and have car insurance because you could get into an accident.

It obviously didn't happen and really "couldn't" happen. Nobody can make you a Christian. You are proof of that (not even your wife can do that for you

Again, public school students have a right to play sports without the government putting them in a situation where they have to make religious choices.

Apparently you disagree and feel the government should be putting students in such situations.

Talking about the ACLU et al. Everything they do has eradication as goal. Eventually we'll be a Muslim-sentiment where we can't share our faith without going to jail. Many of us will go to jail because of conviction. No government can take that away. I'm tired of the inane attempts. We will have a revolution when that happens, probably my kid's, kid's kids.

Your paranoid conspiracy theories are noted.

You don't share 'obvious' with the rest of the population so your particular brand of 'obvious' is peculiar and all your own. You are the odd man with already obvious and disgruntled tendencies. We all expect you to be the odd man out already. We don't spend our time on atheist websites being the odd-man-out disgruntled member. That man is you.

It's obvious that your argument is a failed one because every court in which it's been tried has rejected it.

I'm comfortable with a government that doesn't silence religion. Bowing to Mecca and saying 'thanks' is different than killing infidels.

But some Muslims firmly believe that killing infidels is "good and proper". According to your previous arguments, the government cannot restrict that, otherwise they'd be infringing on their religious rights.

A coach on a field bowing toward Mecca after a game? All well and good. It is HIS expression of HIS religion that he is guaranteed the right to AND that Congress shall make no law to block.

And you don't think Christian parents would be up in arms, objecting that the coach was influencing their kids? If you honestly believe that, you're more delusional than I thought.

It is my right regardless if you feel comfortable giving it to me or not. It is not only guaranteed by the Declaration and Constitution, it is God-given.

No it's not.

Incorrect. He is 'salaried.' It means 'no-clock.' Have you ever coached?

Nope. Read the court ruling....he was acting in his capacity as a government employee.

No more than the Muslim bowing to Mecca makes me Muslim

This isn't about "making them Muslim"; it's about a public school official putting students in a situation where they have to make religious choices. That's illegal. You can stamp your feet and wave your arms all you like, but the reality remains the same.

Did celebrating Christmas year after year harm you at all? Nope :nono: In fact, you are better and closer to your family because of it. You are the poster child against such an unfounded fear. It is merely an offense of 'something you don't like.' Worse? It is horrible. You are hating on a celebration, a thanksgiving. All of the US and ACLU should be ashamed for such wicked sentiments. It is evil, wrongheaded.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but again it is a failed argument.

No. This is stupid, frankly. They have no religious choice they have to make and government pushed nothing.

When their coach goes out of his way to make a public spectacle of his faith, the players are faced with a choice.....do they go along with it, ignore it, or object? The government is not supposed to put public school students in that situation.

Government is to have a 'hands-off' approach

Exactly! And when he is in his capacity as a coach, he is a representative of the government. His actions were hardly "hands off", were they?

Of course he wouldn't believe that. He "couldn't" believe that. I've met them. They don't believe that.

You're missing the point, but that's hardly surprising.

Realized I share some of your concern. It was politically motivated at that point.

Exactly. This wasn't about some poor, humble coach just trying to pray to God; this was a deliberate political act.

HOWEVER, UNLESS there was a rule clearly given not to run into the middle of the field when he was first hired, then this became a religious attack on his rights by default. The problem is the retroactive and vindictive nature of such.

That government officials are not to use their positions to promote religion is well-known and long-standing. Plus, the coach was given a warning and rather than comply, he continued the behavior.

Yes, but this wasn't coercive.

Yes it was. That's why the coach has lost at every level in the legal system.

If the coach made kids stay or made prayer in the locker room mandatory, I'd be on page.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between "coerce" and "force".

All atheist nations have persecuted any show of faith to death. Muslim nations persecute Christians to death. Any of them you want to move too offhand? Or do you enjoy these United States mostly and always has been, of Christians? Is there a 'benefit' to Christian expression and values for you?

None of that relates at all to what I posted.

"In God We Trust...we are endowed by our Creator...one nation under God" etc. etc.

That's it? That's the best you have to show that the founders intended us to be a non-secular state? A motto, a misquote, and a 1950's era addition to a pledge?

Thank you for proving my point.