Pledge of Allegiance Revisited

Suspeckted

Join Date 02/2004

Pledge of Allegiance Revisited

!!!MY 150TH BLOG!!!

When Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy wrote The Pledge of Allegiance he probably never would have guessed that it would become such a heated issue post Y2K. The Pledge of Allegiance, recalls for many, the heated debates of constitutionality just a few years ago over the presence of a three-letter word that was added to the original Pledge in 1954. Though this debate is interesting to me I am not bringing up the Pledge of Allegiance simply to spark old contraversies. Instead of only discussing the merits or drawbacks concerning the 1892 or 1954 versions, I would like to share with you the addition an elementary school has made to the Pledge to make it more personal for their students and hear what you think about it.

This school begins their Pledge just as most of us know it choosing to include the word "God." Following "And Justice For All," which is usually the ending begins the following.

I am a peacemaker,
I treat myself and others with respect,
I listen,
I share,
I care for the Earth, air, water, plants, and animals,
I am important to this very big world,
I know peace begins with me.

I found this very interesting the first time I heard it and many of the kids were happy to recite it today during their lunch as I carefully wrote it down in hopes of sharing it with you.

Because these children, and American children nation-wide, are pledging their "allegiance to the flag" I think it is important to discuss exactly what allegiance is.

According to Dictionary.com:
Allegiance: - The tie or obligation, implied or expressed, which a subject owes to his sovereign or government; the duty of fidelity to one's king, government, or state.

Usage: Allegiance, Loyalty. These words agree in expressing the general idea of fidelity and attachment to the ``powers that be.'' Allegiance is an obligation to a ruling power. Loyalty is a feeling or sentiment towards such power. Allegiance may exist under any form of government, and, in a republic, we generally speak of allegiance to the government, to the state, etc. In well conducted monarchies, loyalty is a warm-hearted feeling of fidelity and obedience to the sovereign. It is personal in its nature; and hence we speak of the loyalty of a wife to her husband, not of her allegiance. In cases where we personify, loyalty is more commonly the word used; as, loyalty to the constitution; loyalty to the cause of virtue; loyalty to truth and religion, etc.

It is interesting to me that so many have expressed their offense at the use of the word "God" but few seem bothered that their children are pledging their "allegiance" to their government. Does "allegiance" suggest that one shouldn't raise their voice in protest of their government where they feel it has wronged them or others?

For this elementary school they have chosen to place personal responsibility on achieving a peaceful world on their students' shoulders. Whether this has any impact on how they view the world is difficult to say. Violence, within the school specifically, is minimal or what one might expect from a fairly priviledged suburb. So achieving a peaceful world within the school is not something they intended to accomplish with their version of the Pledge since it has largely already been acheived. What I believe is important to their addition is:

A) that they've chosen to make it more personal for their students

that it uses clear simple language that children can understand
C) it expresses personal responsibility and empowerment that I feel is often overlooked in our culture

When I did a google search for "Pledge of Allegiance" it returned 369,000 hits, many of which, I'm sure, reflected a great deal of whining on either side of the "God' debate. If you find yourself on either polarized side of the spectrum I recommend the following sites I came across.

http://www.keepthepledge.com/
A site run by those who apparently are "defending the pledge of allegiance and american freedom." Here you can listen to John Wayne recite the pledge if hearing those words from the Duke's mouth is what you're jonesin' for.

http://www.restorethepledge.com/
A site run by those who would like to restore the pledge to the original version that Congress approved in 1942. "Yes, the majority of Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current rendition. But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities. Our Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders," as is now the case."

History of the Pledge Available here: Link

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I hope you're joking, sandy

Successfully updated karma reason!

Changed to the PC version

this is just *more* PC stuff

Please lay off the PC stuff. Just because I agree with one thing some body has called PC, that does not make me a PC nut. If you follow many of my post you will see I am far from PC. In fact you will see I agree with you on about 80% of your post. So the next time you agree with something that just happens to be PC please just remember how quick you slammed down the PC label on someone else.

Frankly I'm just a little disappointed in you GX

That's My Two Cents

PS: Unfortunately in a society of open religion, the sharp reactions against Atheist usually are twice as bad then if I had just said I followed a unpopular religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frankly I'm just a little disappointed in you GX

Did not know I existed for the approval or disapproval of other people other than myself. I am not a politician.

If you are an Atheist that is just fine, if you are not that is fine as well, I just thought the title that I personally did to reflect an appropriate and acceptable label was funny.

As for what I believe I never said I believed in a Christian God or any God, when I used Life, Death and Divinity I meant:
1. Life = Everything lives, everything is born or created.
2. Death = Everything dies, everything is destroyed or dies away.
3. Divinity = Balance, being neither one nor the other or being above both, OR being both, which is why I believe in the Morals of Science. True Balance is attainable, and what I strive for each and everyday.

Nothing I said constitutes supporting or not supporting a divine entity, whether you like one or not, I frankly don't give a damn Scarlet, because I am not you. It is also the reason why I don't go around seeking the approval or disapproval of peers or anybody for that matter outside of Love Interest.

Sorry but I am neither here to offend you or fend you, I am here to type my damn mind.

If you want Ethics, don't expect any from me. I only stay politically correct just enough not to be arrested or sued by some A-Hole.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

Successfully updated karma reason!

People say to be tolerant of all religions both from the Christians and non-Christians. I just believe those who have no religion should be respected for their views too.

But there's one thing that the PC crowd (not singling you out, mind you) always forgets in this type of argument: in this country, majority rules (or is supposed to, at any rate). Most people in this country do, in fact, worship one god or another. That puts them in the majority. That's one reason why I believe that it's fine for the word "god" to remain where it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know I am *REALLY* sick to death of ALL this PC crap! I would like to get my *hands* on the idiot who started all of this. I think I would proceed to create a *little murder and mayhem*.

Me, too....remember when you could have unpopular views and nobody really cared? As long as you kept them pretty much to yourself or within your little circle of fellow thinkers, it was okay. Now, thanks to PC thought policing, it's not even okay to HAVE an "unpopular" viewpoint.
Remember when you used to be able to tell a potentially offensive joke, or make a statement that might offend, but the person or people it offended just let it slide, because they thought "well, everyone else laughed, so, what the hell...they all liked it...I didn't, but that's just me....."
Today, though, you can't say anything because you might offend one person in a group of whatever number, so you have to watch anything and everything you say and do. This goes along with the PC folks forgetting about the "majority rules" ideal. Their attitude is one of "I don't like it, it offends me, so it should offend everyone and noone should like it." That's wrong on so many levels, I don't knwo where to begin.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I pledge allegiance
To the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic
For which it stands
One nation
Under Allah
Indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all

Nobody for under god has yet to answer how they would feel with this change. I think they would act the same as I do.

But that’s fine when the Majority wants to pipe Allah's prayer over the loud speaker in your city (like in MI, IL, or IN); I know you guys would be the first to scream foul. But the Majority is not the Law.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is of a religion or any religion. Congress did add with a law "Under God" into a government area and it's unconstitutional. At no time does removing "Under God" prohibit your free exercise thereof. Because if you say it does, then what would stop a Majority from adding Allah to every thing printed from the Government? That is why the statement that Congress shall make no law comes before the esercise thereof. Just because it is a Majority does not make it legal under the Constitution. If you want to make it legal then get all your buddies together to change the Constitution, now that I would be fine with.

Anybody who is a Constitutionalist (like myself) will agree that following the Constitution, even if it is not a part you agree with, is the most important thing we can do as a citizen.

That's why I hate activist Judges.

I'm not being PC here, I'm just practicing my Right not to have Congress to establish a Religion for me.

That's My Two Cents

Successfully updated karma reason!

pledge allegiance
To the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic
For which it stands
One nation
Under Allah
Indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all

Nobody for under god has yet to answer how they would feel with this change. I think they would act the same as I do.

But that’s fine when the Majority wants to pipe Allah's prayer over the loud speaker in your city (like in MI, IL, or IN); I know you guys would be the first to scream foul. But the Majority is not the Law.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Boy have you got it ALL fouled up! The words *under God* in NO way tries to establish religon. And BTW *rightwinger* IS correct in THIS republic the majority rules! If this was not the case then why bother to have elections.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

But that’s fine when the Majority wants to pipe Allah's prayer over the loud speaker in your city (like in MI, IL, or IN);

Michigan is a city now? Damn, we shrank. I believe that you are referring to Dearborn and some of the other cities that have a large group of Muslims. What you are also referring to is during their church services, and they view it no different than churches ringing bells (it's their call to church).

The thing is "God" is not saying "Christian God". It's a generic term. "Allah" is a "God", just not the Christian God. If people would just get over it and realize that everyone that believes in a divine spirit is basically praying to the same "God" then these debates would never have to exist. Instead of debating how to end hunger, we're worried that our kids might learn the meaning of God in the school systems. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

The problem is that not everybody believes in a divine sprite. Your arguement is good if you are talking to someone who does believe in the divide sprite, but not for those who do not.

Thanks for pointing out that is was Dearborn.

The words *under God* in NO way tries to establish religon.

As far as the "three letter word" goes...."god" is not just the "official" Judeo-Christian name for their deity. It's also the generic word for any divine being, be it Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva.....whatever divine being you choose to worship. "God" is a big word, for only having three letters.

Just because you want to group montheistic religions into "Under God", does not prevent it from being a religion. Weather it is one faith or meany under one name it is a religion of one divine Sprite.

The reason for the founder used the generic term Religion in the Constitution is so they can cover any and all Religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

The problem is that not everybody believes in a divine sprite

That is why I said: "that everyone that believes in a divine spirit is basically praying to the same "God"" I didn't say that everyone did believe.

But, as a side note, I don't believe in God. I am more defined as a Buddhist with a Transcendental twist. However, I am in no way offended or outraged by the word "God" in the pledge or on our money or anything else. The majority of the US is still Christian. Our laws are based on Christian values. To believe that "God" should be stripped from everything public seems silly to me, and quite selfish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The majority of the US is still Christian. Our laws are based on Christian values. To believe that "God" should be stripped from everything public seems silly to me, and quite selfish.

Exactly.Thank you, Karmagirl...people, here's an example of someone who may not believe as the majority believes, but she isn't shallow and selfish enough to begrudge it to the rest of us. Good for her and her example.

Lee1776:

Look: like it or not, believe in it or not, our government was founded and is based on the Christian faith. From city and town councils,all the way up to both Houses of Congress, there is a prayer before the opening of each session. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Majority DOES rule in this country.....you and those who believe (or not, as the case may be) as you do are in the minority. Why can't you just live with that and let the rest of us enjoy our fantasy, as you choose to see it? Why do you have to try and spoil everything for everybody? And as for "not" being PC....you sure do spout their party line very well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's not forget the context of this amendment. When our country first began, the government "sanctioned" the protestant faith by funding places of worship. The Catholics, Jews, etc. did not have the backing of the government and were basically left to fend for themselves. This is the basis for the amendment and should not be interpreted as government cannot make any references to God. As one of our founding fathers said (I apologize that I can't remember the name), the constitution was meant for a religious, law abiding country.

I do however; believe that people do have the right to believe in anything they want and I would never push my beliefs on anyone. We all have strong opinions when it comes to this subject. I think we should focus on what our country was founded upon and rally around the "country" and believe in the whole of the country and stop arguing over symantics - it doesn't solve anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know....I've been doing this forum thing for quite a while, though I admit that I'm still relatively new here. I've been in and out of various forums over time, and one thing I've noticed is this: when people on the Left are cornered or outnumbered, as Lee1776 seems to be here, they frequently become belligerent and/or sarcastic and disrespectful.

Lee1776, no one here has questioned, nor have they impugned your right to an atheistic viewpoint.....please refrain from disrespecting the Lord God by refering to Him as "the Divine Sprite." Have some respect to our views, please.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Catholics, Jews, etc. did not have the backing of the government and were basically left to fend for themselves.

I agree with you in theory, but let's give the Fathers the benefit of the doubt; how many Catholics and Jews do you honestly think there were in the American Colonies at that time? America was founded by Protestants for Protestants.....America wasn't "America" yet. But they were, fortunately, far-sighted enough to foresee the arrival of others different faiths and beilefs. The Constitution is big enough to hold any viewpoint, as long as we're willing let things be, and not try to bully others into seeing things our way. THAT is unconstitutional.....but its what we see every day from those who espouse intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Right winger

I did not mean to offend one's beliefs and if I did I did not do it on purpose. Just as I do not want others to offend me on my non-belief.

I know what you are saying about people being belligerent and disrespectful, but I hope that I have not been one of them. The only thing people that I have said I hated was Activist Judges. I have not used any ** or highlighting in order scream a point. This forum is about good debate not shouting matches.

As for God being a "Divine Sprite", unfortunately I carried it over from my reply to KarmaGirl portion in post 34 into the lower portion then sorry I should have said "Divine Being". (You used the term in Post #10)

But don't jump all over me for disrespecting your view by calling the Lord God any of the following: "Divine Being", "Higher Being", "Divine Entity" and Devine Sprite". All have been used multiple times in this post by the following people and before I even used them in responses.

Your self Post #10 (being the first to use any of these phrases)
drmiler post #16 & 19 "Higher being"
GX post 24, 25, & 28 "Divine Entity"
KarmaGirl 33 & 35 "Devine Sprite" (Which you applauded in post #36)

If you find the conversation in general offensive then just don’t open the post anymore.

PS. Before I was an Atheist, I was a Christian for most of my life. With over four years in a Catholic school.

Successfully updated karma reason!

*chuckles* The communication issue going on here is that Lee1776 is spelling the word "spirit" wrong. He means s-p-i-r-i-t, but is spelling it s-p-r-i-t-e. And of course, there is a big difference between a spirit and a sprite. he he he . . . all this trouble as the result of a spelling error . . .

Successfully updated karma reason!

even as an atheist, "under god" doesn't offend me...nor does "in god we trust" stop me from earning and spending money...

As for the Pledge, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that nobody can be forced to say it, so I think that should pretty much satisfy anybody. If you're so sensitive that you can't even bear to HEAR the word "god" then you should probably invest in some high priced ear plugs. These anti-under god crusaders are annoying twits who give the non-religious a bad name.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Myrrander . . . I like what you just said. Here, have an insightful.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #42 By: Myrrander - 9/30/2004 1:53:02 PM
even as an atheist, "under god" doesn't offend me...nor does "in god we trust" stop me from earning and spending money...

As for the Pledge, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that nobody can be forced to say it, so I think that should pretty much satisfy anybody. If you're so sensitive that you can't even bear to HEAR the word "god" then you should probably invest in some high priced ear plugs. These anti-under god crusaders are annoying twits who give the non-religious a bad name.

Myrrander: I gave you an insightful, too.
You and I finally agree on something ~~~extends hand~~~ friends?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I did not mean to offend one's beliefs and if I did I did not do it on purpose. Just as I do not want others to offend me on my non-belief.

Lee1776: That's all well and good, but you seem to be one of those I referred to earlier as looking for offense where none is intended. No one is trying to force you to believe in or to worship a God you choose not to believe in....just allow me and others like me the same priviledge. Respect our belief as we respect your non-belief. Is that so hard?

I've had a bit of an epiphany here....on another post, I was all over this one guy for being an atheist. I owe him an apology. I believe in God, but you don't.....so what? That's up to you. Let's let each other be, huh?

Texas Wahine: I think you're right....it was a misspelling. But then, if it wasn't, and he was just being smart and playing on the word "spirit", I couldn't, in good conscience, let that slide.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But then, if it wasn't, and he was just being smart and playing on the word "spirit", I couldn't, in good conscience, let that slide.

Yup. That's the bad thing about the internet . . . no body language, tone, or facial expressions to read . . . sometimes it's hard to know how to take something. However, I see Lee1776 misspell a lot of words, so I just assumed it was a spelling error. (Sorry Lee1776

)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry about the misspelling guys.

It was not ment to be offensive. I will admit to miss spelling things from time to time (blasted spell check can't catch everything).

I enjoy debating with all of you guys. Texas Wahine and Rightwing you both are good poeple.

Have a good day guys.

Successfully updated karma reason!

*grin*

*shakes*

Of course, rightwinger -- little whip, texas wahine, and gideon have been giving me lessons on separating people from their politics

Successfully updated karma reason!

GX post 24, 25, & 28 "Divine Entity"

Post 28 was more on my view of Life, Death, and Divinity with only a snippet rebutting to your answer.

In the Divinity part I never said that Divinity = Divine Entity.

Don't take myself wrong; I just want to make sure all is clarified if it was not.

I personally do not have problems with any religions whatsoever, take the Under God part if you like, but does it make that big of a difference, has it forced you to take up a Christian Religion, has it forced myself to take up a Christian Religion, and I remember saying the whole bit with Under God in during Elementary School and look at me, I am not a Christian. Hmmm I guess it does not have that much of a changing effect or forced effect, plus you can always change the God bit to suit yourself. I did that sometimes, from Kronos to Anubis, from Gods to Goddesses, from God to no God, etc.

Oh well I could care less, because in reality whether it stays in or goes the way of Prohibition. I could care less because it will never directly effect myself, unless they started eliminating religions altogether, but they haven't and they won't. At least not until the time that they will actually try.

- GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am very conservative. However, this is one of the few issues in which I actually agree with liberals.

Aren't atheist children less American than religious children if we are "one nation under god"? Why should atheist children have to sit down and shut up every school day? It seems to me that the religious children are the ones who need to be tolerant.

This is not just a PC issue. It goes to the heart of the serious issue of seperation of church and state.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: