Pledge of Allegence

melissa · Apr 19, 2004

Alaric said:
melissa said:

i think that until someone can find a better replacement for the pledge we should just let it go. the USA has more things to worry about, like the war, for example

Click to expand...

The government and courts can and do handle more than one thing at a time. Eisenhower took the time to put it in, so Bush can take the time to take it out.

I think the whole idea of the pledge has a fascist tinge to it - how can you ask kids to swear allegience to their country? Are you going to toss them out if they don't want to?

you bring up a good point, Alaric, what happens if people choose not to say the pledge?

Master Vigil · Apr 19, 2004

Nothing, I chose not to. Nothing at all happened to me. It would be unamerican if they would try to do anything to me.

Death · Apr 23, 2004

God has nothing to do with patriotism, morality, liberty or justice.

It was only put in to make the evil godless commie conspirators explode or something when they said it and the associated McCarthyite hysteria caught zip communists.

The pledge is discriminatory to nontheists. Replace "God" with "white ideals" and you have much the same problem.

It should be removed.

Rex · Apr 23, 2004

Death said:
God has nothing to do with patriotism, morality, liberty or justice.

It was only put in to make the evil godless commie conspirators explode or something when they said it and the associated McCarthyite hysteria caught zip communists.

The pledge is discriminatory to nontheists. Replace "God" with "white ideals" and you have much the same problem.

It should be removed.

Well I would think the main reason it is in there is b/c our country was created by probably 98% of some sort of christians. So it's more of a tradition than anything.

With that in mind thinking the way the early settlers thought it did have everything to do with patriotism, morality, liberty, and justice.

It's just now today since the U.S. is a melting pot does this song start to have its blemishes.

What you think?

Death · Apr 23, 2004

Rex_Admin said:
[
Well I would think the main reason it is in there is b/c our country was created by probably 98% of some sort of christians. So it's more of a tradition than anything.

Appealing to tradition is a fallacy. Besides, the phrase was only a recent addition, so it's an appeal to young tradition. :lol:

With that in mind thinking the way the early settlers thought it did have everything to do with patriotism, morality, liberty, and justice.

Not with the founding fathers, however.

Check these quotes out (i'm not objectivist, but the quotes are good)
http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html

It's just now today since the U.S. is a melting pot does this song start to have its blemishes.

Not really, since it was only added in the 60's.

Rex · Apr 23, 2004

I had no idea it was added in the 60s. Makes much more sense now!

on a side note I don't think appealing to tradition would be a fallacy. It's still tradition. Of course we could both throw 10 debates for each side off the back and we would never get anywhere.

Death · Apr 24, 2004

Rex_Admin said:
I had no idea it was added in the 60s. Makes much more sense now!

on a side note I don't think appealing to tradition would be a fallacy. It's still tradition. Of course we could both throw 10 debates for each side off the back and we would never get anywhere.

Appealing to tradition for something such as this applies to any discriminatory position;

"Free the slaves? But owning slaves is traditional!"

"Allow blacks the vote? But black people have never had that in the past, why should they get it now?"

"Remove "under God" from the pledge? But it's traditional!"

Well, It would have also been traditional to not put it in in the first place.

Rex · Apr 24, 2004

Death said:
Rex_Admin said:

I had no idea it was added in the 60s. Makes much more sense now!

on a side note I don't think appealing to tradition would be a fallacy. It's still tradition. Of course we could both throw 10 debates for each side off the back and we would never get anywhere.

Click to expand...

Appealing to tradition for something such as this applies to any discriminatory position;

"Free the slaves? But owning slaves is traditional!"

"Allow blacks the vote? But black people have never had that in the past, why should they get it now?"

"Remove "under God" from the pledge? But it's traditional!"

Well, It would have also been traditional to not put it in in the first place.

Now I didn't agree with all traditions. But some traditions I do.

Death · Apr 25, 2004

Exactly, you take traditions based on whether they're fair or not. The pledge isn't fair, since not everyone is under any god or the majority's god.

Mr Spinkles · May 4, 2004

Ok, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. But even I don't have a problem with the whole "under God" thing.

THEDARKONE is right- no one makes anyone say it. Now, I wouldn't have supported ADDING the "under God" part in the first place; but, now that it's in there, I really don't think it's a big deal and I don't think our energy should be wasted in trying to get it removed. Honestly, having those words in the Pledge doesn't in any way make me feel like my rights are being threatened. I say, live and let live.

Ardhanariswar · Jul 10, 2004

does it matter? no one is going to keel over and die by saying 'under God'. sheesh. people need to know how to lipsing or shut thier mouthes.

dont change it. its a waste of everyones time.

Runt · Jul 11, 2004

No one is going to keel over and die by NOT saying "under God" either. The pledge of allegiance is about pledging allegiance to this COUNTRY. Not about pledging allegiance to God, or verifying the existence of God, or even about God in any way. Therefore, there is no need for God to be mentioned in the pledge at all. It is superfluous.

A question: If you do not believe in God, but you are pledging your allegience to "one nation under God", are you therefore pledging falsely?

Ardhanariswar · Jul 11, 2004

when the part comes in the pledge *under god* just dont say anything and then start again at indivisible.

just because too protective dad of a 6 year old was whining doesnt mean you have to change it

oh well i dont care either way. i believe in God....

Ardhanariswar · Jul 11, 2004

but i dont even say the pledge either.

because the US has strayed from its original beliefs in the consitution. i dislike the government so much.

i never put my faith in a country, i put it in God.

Ronald · Jul 11, 2004

I grew up under the 1924 model, thought it was great, didn't see the need to add to it. I am afraid those words are more responsible for the indivisible becoming divided down the middle.
I have no trouble speaking God, but it is a problem for some. I for one do not favor running those (who have a problem) out of the USA.
Keep it or lose it, no matter for me. I am happy to be an American.

mahayana · Jul 11, 2004

I grew up under the 1954 version, and thought nothing of the "under God" part until the first day of school in the 8th grade, when a new student refused to say the pledge and was marched to the Principal's office by an angry homeroom teacher (this was 1963).

Turned out he was Seventh Day Adventist, and believed it was wrong to pledge allegiance to anyone but God. They didn't expell him.

My own preference would be that we pledged allegiance to a Government of all the people of the planet, ended Nationalism and its symbols. (I may be a little out of step here, LOL)

There was a question in an e-mail the other day "Why won't they allow the Ten Commandments in the same courthouse where everyone has to swear on the Bible before testifying?"

Ardhanariswar · Jul 14, 2004

hypocrites.

pegan · Jul 14, 2004

From the ages of 6-15 I was an Atheist, proud and true. I stood for the pledge to show my respect and acknowledgment of a country. I did not, however, say the pledge.

Saying the Pledge is pledging loyalty to a country. I simply refuse to do that, regardless of "under god." I took the pledge for what it really was.

I can from Europe anyways....my allegiance stays elsewhere! :lol:

~*Pegan*~

Sam Bloom · Jul 14, 2004

Should probably be taken out. US is now representative of many religions, different Gods, etc. and the pledge should be able to be used by every single American without worrying about the religous aspect of it.

If someone could prove that their God was the true God, or their religion was absolutely true, then maybe we could insert it. But we all know that it can't be and most likely will never be proven. You believe what you do, because that is what you are taught, and you will justify your beliefs no matter what, even if your justifications are absurd.

mahayana · Jul 15, 2004

I guess it does come down to the separation of church and state idea. The people who talk about a "Christian nation" don't seem to get the tolerance aspect. Theocracy is intolerant, and vestiges of it appeal to majority rule imposing their belief system on those who differ.

Bad enough that the two party system makes it impossible to elect representatives who aren't Republicans or Democrats ( and very few who aren't rich white male Protestants). Do we want a religious government which promotes the religion of the majority, or a non-religious government, which allows diversity and "makes no law with respect to religion"?

Pledge of Allegence

Should the words 'under god' be cut out of the pledge?

yes

no

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Founder

Member

Founder

Member

Founder

Member

Mr

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Member

I'm back!

Member

Member

Member