Suspeckted

Pledge of Allegiance Revisited

▼

Pledge of Allegiance Revisited

!!!MY 150TH BLOG!!!

from JoeUser Forums
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
B) 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
29,552 views 71 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've found that if I want to just say the pledge and not say "under god," then people don't tend to notice. Another thing to do is just realize that the idea of being one indivisible nation, built around freedom is what that really means -- such as Jeffereson's inalienable human rights given by the "Creator." "one nation under god" to me just means one nation united to be "good." One nation united under freedom and morality. I know there are negative connotations with "god" for some people, but when I can "one nation under god," I make it personal for me. For me, the "godliness" or "holiness" of every person is how they use moral judgement -- so in a sense, I'm saying we're "one nation under good moral judgement." We don't always make the right choice, but nobody does.

For the CHristian who wants to think about Jesus during "under god," so be it. That Christian obviously derives joy from it, just as I derive joy by thinking about a nation united under "goodness."

I'm sorry I'm a bit long winded over this, it's just that I left an atheist book group I was in because of this very issue. NObody could get over it.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good article my friend.
You got an, "insightful", from me.
I couldn't add another word.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was just kidding texas lol
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
*phew* you were freakin me out a wee bit . . .
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
This thread has become very disappointing to me as it has been somewhat high-jacked into bringing up recycled arguments that everyone has had to deal with in the last few years. My argument on this entire matter is that regardless of how you feel about the three-letter word addition contraversay, our country has a lot more important things to worry about. It's a great distraction to banter back and forth about Political Correctness in this case, which may have its time and place, but not in the context of our current world. At the same time the Pledge debate was going on we had to put up with our elected officials arguing about the placement of the ten comandments in public settings........I have one thing to say to elected officials who spent any office time on either of these issues, GET BACK TO WORK, and pay back the American people every penny you earned while wasting our time and money.

Tonight in the debates I listened to two men, one of which will become our president until 2008, discuss foreign policy. All they talked about was the war on terror. What about AIDS in Africa, NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA?

The point of my post was not to recycle old arguments but to introduce JU bloggers (and guests who have been kind enough to grace my blog) to the addition one elementary school made to their Pledge of Allegiance. However, I have been somewhat sucked into it, but I've decided to limit my comments to the following quotes for the time being to avoid getting to sucked into this old debate.


Today, it seems like a fairly robotic announcement that most people only say at sporting events simply because they do not want to be the only one not saying it.


Yanda, thanks for joining the thread. I think you're referring to the national anthem here as I don't think I've ever heard the Pledge of Allegiance out of a school or boy scout setting.

One Nation Under GodChanged to the PC version:One Nation Under That Divine Entity who may exist but not for all so if you don't believe in him or her than that is just fine, if you do and whatever name you have for him or her that is just fine too.


Actually if you would have read about the history of the Pledge you'd recognize that it was changed from what many would consider a PC version (the original version) to include "God" in the last 50 years.

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.


Classy statement...or rather hypocritical since combatting political correctness is your particular ethic. You have preached your ethics by mocking those of others. Ethics - "A set of principles of right conduct." You've judged political correctness to be omitted from your particular set of principles of right conduct. So maybe you meant to say that we can't expect you to tell us about what you think is right, but I doubt it.

Reply #56 from PolMach Forums Top
Actually if you would have read about the history of the Pledge you'd recognize that it was changed from what many would consider a PC version (the original version) to include "God" in the last 50 years.


I knew that and the original post was made of jest not seriousness. The second post clarifies that point.

Classy statement...or rather hypocritical since combatting political correctness is your particular ethic. You have preached your ethics by mocking those of others. Ethics - "A set of principles of right conduct." You've judged political correctness to be omitted from your particular set of principles of right conduct. So maybe you meant to say that we can't expect you to tell us about what you think is right, but I doubt it.


I am combatting Political Correctness from myself, the statement was made that I will be ethical and PC when dealing with other people because the consequenece or what would could happen in the worse situation is that I could be sued for not being that way, just as you could be sued as well for the same reason.

Plus how am I COMBATTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BY MAKING A FREAKING STATEMENT OUT OF JEST THAN IT BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE CAN'T TAKE A JOKE. I don't stop you from being PC, so how am I a freaking hypocrite.

Good lord you humorless person of ill-repute (because you can't tell a joke from something serious), please PURCHASE some humor from your local supermarket, please do.

How much does PC shite have to do with my personal life in which I do not interact with anybody, hmm? Must I be PC to myself in my thoughts in my actions in MY OWN PERSONAL LIFE. I think you are having trouble between differenaitate between Personal Life and Public Life.

This my last damn response on this thread to you until you get a freaking sense of humor.

- The Pissed OFF GX
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


Of course they're not "less American". That's just picking nits, if you ask me. I mean, Were Jews really "less German" because they were Jews?
No one ever said the atheist children actually had to say that one word.....they could easily skip right over it, if they chose to do so.
I know that when I go to church and recite the Lord's Prayer, I change the words "....trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" to "....debts as we forgive our debtors", because that was the way I learned it as a child in the United Church of Christ.
I have since changed denominations, but as I have no ill will toward my old church, I say it the "old way" to......remember my "roots", I guess would be the right way to put it.
Reply #58 from PolMach Forums Top
When you make the point that atheist children don't have to say "under god".....you are essentially telling them to sit down and shut up.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you make the point that atheist children don't have to say "under god".....you are essentially telling them to sit down and shut up.


How? I don't see it that way.....anybody else?
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wrong. Your reply is siteing 2 specific higher beings. YOU, your self said *God* could be used for MANY different ones. So in that respect your reply won't hold water.


Maybe a bigger concern is if we were forced to say "under Darwin"...lol

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Myrrander,


Your view is very much respected on this, and is one I wish many more atheists saw. They will often complain about the bias against them in society, which DOES exist, but exists largely because of the antagonistic push to remove all religious culture from society (such groups as Freedom From Religion come to mind). When a culture's values are threatened, that sulture will react.


Personally, I don't care what laws are enacted. My faith is not based on a legislative act nor a judicial edict. If you take offense to me putting a nativity on my lawn, tough titties. But in all fairness, I'm also the one that wanted to buy a resin Jesus statue and deck it out in a Mariners jacket and affix a bottle opener in its outstretched hand, which woulda pissed off the other side plenty.


As for the Pledge, it can say "under Barney the Dinosaur" for all I care. I don't say it. I'm just not prone to making promises I don't intend to keep.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
They will often complain about the bias against them in society, which DOES exist, but exists largely because of the antagonistic push to remove all religious culture from society (such groups as Freedom From Religion come to mind).


Bingo, you just summed up perfectly my problem with the atheist "community." I've found that most atheists go about with a big, god-hating chip on their shoulder. I used to be really bad about it, and I'll admit it slips out from time to time. But there are atheists who want to take the Bible out of school libraries and leave "Lady Chatterly's Lover" in. Now, which book has had more on an influence on Western Civilization? Despite whether you BELIEVE it or not, only a fool would try to turn a blind eye to Christianity and its place both in our history and our present.

I don't care if the 10 commandments are hanging up somewhere in a courthouse. I happen to think that the 10 commandments are pretty good rules to live by. Nativity Scenes? My mom collects nativity scene figures (she's got a whole Nativity TOWN) so every time I see a Nativity Scene I think of my mom, and how much joy they give her. I work in a school in the Bible Belt, and on every wall is a plaque that says "In God We Trust" emblazoned on an American flag. It doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm still a believer in the fact that the will of the majority has some heavy pull -- and the majority of people here like those "In God We Trust" plaques. It makes them happy. And being happy is something that we need more of today.

Suspecketed is right, there are so many other issues that the courts and politicians could be addressing.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Grim Xiozan

so how am I a freaking hypocrite.


You said that no one should turn to you for ethics? But ethics in an of themselves are values...saying you have no ethics is like saying you have no values. I was under the impression that you were saying you choose to be poltically correct only as much as is required to keep people from suing you...was this your joke? I guess you're right...I am having difficulty differentiating...at least between statements made in jest and seriousness.

Good lord you humorless person of ill-repute


Wow, I didn't know I was humorless or of ill-repute. The things one learns on JU on a Friday morning.

please PURCHASE some humor from your local supermarket, please do.


I would but I don't make a living wage so I can't afford it. ZING!

This my last damn response on this thread to you until you get a freaking sense of humor.- The Pissed OFF GX


For real though I wasn't trying to piss you off, I was simply confused by your comments and perhaps I'll seek better ways to ask for clarification in the future.



Gideon - My faith is not based on a legislative act nor a judicial edict. If you take offense to me putting a nativity on my lawn, tough titties.


Amen, and thank you for using "tough titties" in this thread. It definitely lightened the mood for me, though I can find no humor in it since I am apparently a humorless person of ill-repute.
Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top
When you make the point that atheist children don't have to say "under god".....you are essentially telling them to sit down and shut up.


How? I don't see it that way.....anybody else?


I do, but you know my feeling on the subject already.

Personally, I don't care what laws are enacted. My faith is not based on a legislative act nor a judicial edict. If you take offense to me putting a nativity on my lawn, tough titties. But in all fairness, I'm also the one that wanted to buy a resin Jesus statue and deck it out in a Mariners jacket and affix a bottle opener in its outstretched hand, which woulda pissed off the other side plenty.


I don't care either. What you do on your own property and time is your business. If you lived next to me and asked me to help with the lighting system, I would gladly help.

Not all atheist, like myself, what to ban the Bible or forbid the Ten Commandments as a moral, cultural, or traditional directive. The only thing I say is remove a few words that were added recently that does not institute moral directives, but to establish someone else’s view of religion. Where you say that theses are only two simple words just let it be and don't say them. I say, so if you think it is such a trivial thing, then lets be sensible and not say them at all. If you’re so strong in your faith, then you don't need them.

I am not one of those nuts that say Religion is bad and want to strip everything. We all heave nuts in our ranks. I have been hoping that believers would give an inch. It is just that in my opinion, believers think the Atheistic Mongol Horde will quickly be tearing down Churches and invading their house to ripe apart all Religion symbols if they allow us to prevent them from saying two words.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #65 from PolMach Forums Top
The seperation of church and state is a serious issue. Here are some examples:

The ancient Egyptians believed that their pharaoh was a god (the ultimate combination of church and state) and the citizens worked their arses off to build great temples (the pyramids) to worship them.

Divine Right is a term used to describe kings of medieveal Europe. It means that it was gods rule that the king was the leader. As a result, the citizens were afraid to question the king.

These are extreme examples...but my point is that the seperation of church and state is a serious issue.

The phrase "one nation under god" couldn't be a more obvious violation of the seperation of church and state.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
The phrase "one nation under god" couldn't be a more obvious violation of the seperation of church and state



If that was seriously the case don't you think it would have been shot down in 1950 when it was introduced?
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #67 By: oligarchy314 - 10/2/2004 12:57:56 AM
It should have been


Shoulda, coulda, woulda! The fact remains that it wasn't
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
but my point is that the seperation of church and state is a serious issue.


But my point is that I don't think it's serious enough for the amount of time that's been committed to such things, and this is a very liberal person saying this. I really hope that if people took a closer look at their causes they'd appreciate that removing the word "god" or keeping it in the Pledge will not make America safer, more unified, or solve any of our collection of greater problems.

don't you think it would have been shot down in 1950 when it was introduced?

Let's not ignore the social environment that was then and the one we have now. Clearly things have changed in what our society find acceptable or unacceptable it's rediculous to say that we should leave it alone because they had no problem with it in 1950. Having separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks was a great violation of our country's values yet at one time we had no problem doing that. I think you've used some pretty poor logic here in your defense.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #69 By: oligarchy314 - 10/2/2004 1:30:02 AM
You may think that the courts have been correct on every single issue drmiler...but I don


I think NO such thing so quit putting words in my mouth! I never said they were correct. What I said/meant was that it's already a done deal.
Now to the both of you that responded to my post, actually *more* to the first responder. I think you better go check the link below. Read and comprehend what was written! After you've read it come on back and we'll talk some more.
Link
The article talks about separation of chruch and state and the true meaning of it.