Pledge of Allegiance [Archive]

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 15, 2004, 12:40 PM

Just to let you know, I think they added the "Under God" part after WWII, in the late 40's early 50's. My classes rarely did the pledge of allegience in elementry school, and never did it in middle or high school. The Star Spangled banner however . . . it was sung by every boy and girl that "thought" they had a good voice, at every prep rally and assembly in high school. I don't think the pledge is bad, but I can see how some people could want the "under God" part out.

Personally, I don't really care either way.

numediaman

Jun 15, 2004, 02:19 PM

Those who don't know about the history of the pledge might find this interesting:

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History

by Dr. John W. Baer

Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston . . .

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Thanatoast

Jun 15, 2004, 02:45 PM

i plead alignment, to the flakes,
and the unprincipled snakes of america,
and to the republicans, for which they scam,
one nacho, underpants,
with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.

(thanks go to matt groenig)

my only objection at the moment would be that it claims "liberty and justice for all", a standard we no longer live up to.

IJ Reilly

Jun 15, 2004, 02:45 PM

I'm not a fan of rote exercises, patriotic or otherwise.

I don't have strong feelings about the "under God" part of the Pledge, but I do hope that the next Constitutional case is brought by a religious non-monotheist (such as a Buddhist), not another atheist. I think the Supreme Court would have a much harder time issuing a smug decision if they had to look into the eyes an American person of faith that doesn't happen to believe in the Judeo-Christian conception of God, and to tell them that Congress by making this law wasn't in any way establishing religion.

Sayhey

Jun 15, 2004, 03:20 PM

Children should be taught the history of our nation, warts and all, along with the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When kids reach the age of majority and they have a basis for making an informed decision and they then want to pledge allegiance to a symbol - then I would have no problem, not before. It might have some meaning other than a silly exercise to satisfy those among us who fear a terrorist (communist, anarchist, take your pick) under every bed.

Neserk

Jun 15, 2004, 11:31 PM

I"m as much against the Pledge itself as I am the "under God" part.

Why? Well the "under God" part should offend all. It should offend Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who believe in God because God's name is being taken in vain on a regular basis. It should offend those who don't believe in God because their children are being forced to say something that they don't believe in . It should offend Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans because they don't believe in the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I am also against it because it violates the freedom of speech of children. It would be one thing if Adults had the right (and the place) to say the pledge, at will, before work. They actually know what it means. But children don't. More often than not I see, as a teacher, children saying the pledge than batting at as they walk out the door. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen it disrespected. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for buring the flag in protest against the American Government. It is just that when you disrepsect it should (imho) be intentional, not part of a game.

Don't panic

Jun 16, 2004, 01:02 PM

as I mentioned in the other thread (maybe they should be merged), in my opinion the pledge is an act of propaganda and brain-washing.

The fact that it is IMPOSED on CHILDREN is disturbing. it's something that belongs to a regime and not to a mature democracy, especially in the current format. It's not different in essence to when chinese kids were forced to learn songs about the marvels of maoism, or italian kids to recite how great Mussolini was.
Well, the US are not maoist China nor fascist Italy and shouldn't resort to such sad gimmicks to promote liberty and justice (and, btw, what about equality?)
And it is particularly said in times like these, when to so many people around the world the american flag comes to symbolize anything BUT freedom and justice (thanks to the warheads in charge in DC)
Worshipping the flag (any flag) is only conductive to ultranationalism and oppression.

As for the "under god" appendage is so obviously wrong and unconstitutional that I am appalled that it's even discussed. the recent decision (IMO) reflects the fact that this is obvious to the supreme court justices too, so they used this manouvering to stall the necessary decision.

IJ Reilly

Jun 16, 2004, 01:22 PM

I'm unpersuaded by this particular argument. A lot of things are "imposed" on children in schools, such as spelling, grammar and the times tables (though judging by many of the posts I see here, perhaps the first two aren't so widely imposed anymore). I'm not defending the Pledge, but school it seems to me is by definition an "imposition" on children, so it's much more a matter of what we impose, rather than whether we impose.

skunk

Jun 16, 2004, 02:32 PM

IJ Reilly

Jun 16, 2004, 03:02 PM

Imposing a particular politico-religious creed is very different from imposing the 10x table.

Well sure, if you're going to spin it that way. I suspect you were required to sing one or two patriotic songs during your school days, but I doubt you took it as an imposition on your tender sensibilities. As I said before, I'm not a fan of rote patriotic exercises, nor am I defending the Pledge specifically, but I am finding some of the arguments against these little national ceremonial displays to be kind of insubstantial. Issues of real substance are in play here, so we should keep our eyes on them.

skunk

Jun 16, 2004, 03:57 PM

Well sure, if you're going to spin it that way. I suspect you were required to sing one or two patriotic songs during your school days, but I doubt you took it as an imposition on your tender sensibilities.
Does "Floreat Etona" qualify? :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Jun 16, 2004, 05:22 PM

Does "Floreat Etona" qualify? :rolleyes:

I don't know -- you tell me. ;)

(An anthem to Eaton College, I presume. I had in mind some more typical exercise in patriotic merry-making, such as "God Save the Queen" or "Jerusalem.")

diamond geezer

Jun 16, 2004, 05:25 PM

What other countries feel they need to brainwash/indoctrinate their youth in such a manner?

China?
NAZI Germany?

Yanks spend to much time with their heads buried in their flag

skunk

Jun 16, 2004, 05:41 PM

Yanks spend to much time with their heads buried in their flag
Too much lip-service. Words, words, words.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 16, 2004, 06:09 PM

In general I have no issues with the Pledge other than the Right having their way back in the 1950's adding the "under God" reference.

As a Christian (by way of the Catholic Church), I understand that we are a nation founded under Christian beliefs. We as a nation have removed ourselves from that as we have accepted many other faiths in our great fabric.

We are not talking about a store that may have the Ten Commandments displayed. I can choose to accept or reject that stores principles. As a government we need to realize that others may find a reference to a singular or Christian God offensive. If we want to hold a Constitutional Convention to rewrite ourselves as a religious State, that is a whole different matter.

"Under God" and "In God We Trust" are IMO endorsement by the government of the christian belief. And borders on the establishment of a government sanctioned religion.

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 10:00 AM

Imposing a particular politico-religious creed is very different from imposing the 10x table.

Yes, imposing math and reading is a means to getting them to have the power to be able to reason for themselves and making their own decisions as adults. The pledge is imposing a a psuedo-patriotic belief system on them.

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 10:02 AM

What other countries feel they need to brainwash/indoctrinate their youth in such a manner?

'
The good news is: it doesn't work. As I said some where I did it from Kinder through the end of elementary school and it had no strong effect on my inability to criticize my government or believe that burning flags is a valid form of protest.

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 10:03 AM

As a Christian (by way of the Catholic Church), I understand that we are a nation founded under Christian beliefs. We as a nation have removed ourselves from that as we have accepted many other faiths in our great fabric.
.

No offense, but you understand incorrectly. We were not founded under Christian beliefs. The founder fathers were primarily deists.

Edit: spelling error

skunk

Jun 17, 2004, 10:04 AM

No offense, but you understand incorrectly. We were not founded under Christian beliefs. The founder fathers were primarily diests.
That's "deists", teacher ;)

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 10:07 AM

That's "deists", teacher ;)

:p

takao

Jun 17, 2004, 10:54 AM

'
The good news is: it doesn't work.

you meant
"it didn't worked with _you_"
you know if "it doesn't work" was 100% true ...then the world would have quite a few problems less (yes even in the US) ;)

addition:
"god is with us" ("Gott is mit uns") was written on the belts of the prussian army and later german "reichswehr" of WW1

but after all..i am biased....you know we had an catholic-fascistic regime from 1934 untill 1938....so it's pretty clear why i am against such "god references" in governmental things...

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 11:14 AM

you meant
"it didn't worked with _you_"
.

true. I thought about adding that but was too lazy. I hate to think I'm the exception but you never know.

Even so, I'm still against forcing children say something that is meaningless to them and they don't really have the right to refuse.

zimv20

Jun 17, 2004, 12:10 PM

That's "deists", teacher ;)
i think she meant to say that they were all on diets

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 12:14 PM

i think she meant to say that they were all on diets

Nope, we all *should* be on diets :p As a nation we are fat!

mactastic

Jun 17, 2004, 12:17 PM

Well now that Freedom Fries are officially in the 'vegetable' catagory we can show our patriotism AND get health at the same time! Plus if you put ketchup (or catsup) on your fries you've got TWO vegetables. Now if only there was some way to get a hamburger classified as a vegetable....

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 17, 2004, 01:31 PM

No offense, but you understand incorrectly. We were not founded under Christian beliefs. The founder fathers were primarily deists.

Edit: spelling error

Well thank you! It adds further fuel to the religious additions to our government.

Deist is defined in the dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason".

Maybe references to God in government should be changed to "a higher power" then?

takao

Jun 17, 2004, 01:45 PM

Now if only there was some way to get a hamburger classified as a vegetable....

offtopic:
isn't there onion in a hamburger ? see you got your vegetable there
;)

zimv20

Jun 17, 2004, 02:02 PM

offtopic:
isn't there onion in a hamburger ? see you got your vegetable there
;)
sometimes. sometimes there's an onion nearby, which, given this administration's sloppy science, should qualify.

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 03:02 PM

Well thank you! It adds further fuel to the religious additions to our government.

Actually it doesn't. It cancels out the argument that the founding fathers were Christians and this is what they would have wanted.

Deist is defined in the dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason".

Maybe references to God in government should be changed to "a higher power" then?

No. It goes back to not having government establishing a religion. The government can't endorse monotheistic religions above other religions.

skunk

Jun 17, 2004, 03:10 PM

The government can't endorse monotheistic religions above other religions.
Or above no religion...

IJ Reilly

Jun 17, 2004, 03:15 PM

Using words like "endorse" is to introduce new language into the debate. The Bill of Rights says "establish." The debate centers on the meaning of that term.

Neserk

Jun 17, 2004, 03:17 PM

Or above no religion...

that, too.

Using words like "endorse" is to introduce new language into the debate. The Bill of Rights says "establish." The debate centers on the meaning of that term.

I believe "establish" means the same thing as "endorse" in this case; or nearly the same thing. The idea is the same

skunk

Jun 17, 2004, 03:21 PM

I believe "establish" means the same thing as "endorse" in this case; or nearly the same thing. The idea is the same
Ah, no. It's much more specific than that. The "Established Church" at the time of the writing of the BoR was, in England, the CofE, where the monarch was head of the church. This is where the movement of antidisestablishmentarianism came from. It was an attempt to sever this linkage between Church (of England) and State.

I've never had the opportunity to use that word until now. :D

zimv20

Jun 17, 2004, 03:35 PM

I've never had the opportunity to use that word until now. :D
so does that mean 'niggardly' is back on the table?

(this page (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=64828&page=3&pp=25&highlight=antidisestablishmentarianism) may serve as reminder)

IJ Reilly

Jun 17, 2004, 04:12 PM

Ah, no. It's much more specific than that. The "Established Church" at the time of the writing of the BoR was, in England, the CofE, where the monarch was head of the church. This is where the movement of antidisestablishmentarianism came from. It was an attempt to sever this linkage between Church (of England) and State.

I've never had the opportunity to use that word until now. :D

And I've never been able to quote it back until now... (which also leads me to discover that it's in the OSX dictionary!)

Yes, I believe you're right. By using the term "establishment" the founders were making reference to the "established" C of E, i.e., a state church. Undoubtedly other words have crept into the interpretation of the amendment since that time. Possibly "endorse" is one of them; I really don't know. In the other article I recently posted we've got Justice Thomas opining that the establishment clause means essentially nothing, short of prohibiting the establishment of a Church of the United States, and doesn't apply beyond the federal government at all. Thankfully, almost nobody buys into this reactionary view.