I had a friend ask if I had anything against the Pledge of Allegiance

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I think he was really referring to the "under God" portion. But I find both pop-culture sides of that argument superfluous and cable-news driven, pseudo-law for the slack-jawed; so I avoided the topic. Instead, I told him that I guess I don't have anything "against" the pledge. It just seems rather silly. I guess the first line is rather problematic for me: because I really don't pledge allegiance to the flag or to the republic for which it stands. There are many things the republic could ask me to do or not do, and I won't do it or won't not do it.

In fact, I continued, the only way way in which I could make that pledge is if the pledge of allegiance was inherently a pledge which called said allegiance into question. So rewritten the pledge would look something like this: "I pledge allegiance to the flag--in so much as said allegiance takes into consideration that said allegiance deconstructs the allegiance I am pledging and thus renders null and void any sense of a static allegiance, but rather endorses a dynamic sense of allegiance which would oftentimes to appear to be quite anarchic and dubious of state-mandated laws--of the United States of America. . . ."

My friend, ignoring my obvious brilliance, then said, "uh huh, so what do you think about "under God?"

[Wapsie B]

1. Tell your revisionist friend

that "under God" was not in the original pledge. Those words were added in the 50's to appease a group of conservatives. And I do believe that it was written by an avowed Socialist if I'm not mistaken.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. Oh yeah, he knows all of the pledge's history.

He just thinks I've got a funny (not funny, ha ha--funny, downright peculiar) approach to things.

He HATES the "under God" addition. He was hoping I'd take a devil's advocate position and argue for it in my "funny" way.

[LostinVA]

4. You are right on both counts

The K of C pressured to have it inserted at the height of McCarthyism, and a Socialist did indeed write it.

[Warpy]

5. yes, his name was Bellamy.

You can read about it here: http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Anyone who makes the mistake of sending me revisionist garbage gets directed to this site, and they generally don't bother me again.

And yes, I think it's creepy to demand a daily loyalty oath from children.

[Discord]

3. I'm against it, but not worth making a big stink about.

I would rather it be returned to its original, but I'm not going to spend my political fire on it.

[PassingFair]

9. Why? Do you have a limited amount ...

of fire?

[Discord]

15. yes. unfortunately, eventually frustration sets in

and I get more angry than rational. Not a good place to debate from if wanting to enlighten others.

[MADem]

6. I liked the ORIGINAL pledge

...which, ironically did not have any God in it though it was written by a MINISTER. It also did not have any "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in it either, but that was added because they were afraid that those awful Mick and Eye-talian kids (the popular, easy to bash minorities back then) would think the flag they were pledging to was the Irish or Italian flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag
And to the republic for which it stands.

One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Sweet, and simple. All of the add-ons are just political blowhardedness.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

11. I still find this pledge problematic.

And I wouldn't make the original pledge. How could I? How do I know what the republic would ask me to do or not do? Is the pledge simply ceremony? O.K., I'll pledge, but then don't expect me to uphold that pledge. Is the pledge serious? O.K., but then don't expect me to make the pledge.

Yes, I'm aware that the pledge is not legally binding. So then it's really just ceremony. So then why do we care if we're reading a revised pledge? Why would anyone care if we go back to the original? Hell, if it's ceremony, I think we should add all sorts of fun things to our pledge. "And to the republic for which it stands, and to all of the elected douche bags in said republic . . ."
"With liberty and Starbucks for all." Or, "With liberty and universal health care--which simply means life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to begin with--for all."


More than anything else, I'm amazed as to how unconsciously people will say things. Of course, my hyper-consciousness is certainly no remedy.

[MADem]

12. I fully support your right to sit on your ass and not participate

And I support those who want to say it, too. It's freedom, either way.

I don't go for knuckle-smacking indoctrination. I dislike these teachers who take it personally when kids choose not to participate. If they don't participate, they need to sit down and shut up, though--no eye rolling, no bullshit. That's common courtesy.

It's a part of our history, and I don't really like revised history. I think it should be taught, but not mandated.

[Snotcicles]

7. How can one pledge to the erroneous come on, liberty and justice

for who?.

[kenny blankenship]

8. Tell him

He's not allowed to reduce the Pledge of Allegiance to the Undergod.
Undergod wasn't intended to be part of the Pledge. It was injected in there by assholes (like him, maybe) grandstanding in Congress.

Tell him this country successfully fought and survived the First World War, The Second World War and the Korean Conflict without the help of the UNDERGOD.

Then some assholes put it in there, making kids say it at school, and look what happened in Vietnam--we lost a war for the first time ever!

Getting rid of the Undergod is not being "against the Pledge", it is RESTORING THE PLEDGE.

[seabeyond]

10. i have had adults and hcildren alike ask me recently about

this. i probably feel more like you. all the issues, this is the big deal

was added in. dont like dont say. if it is taken out big deal. we are not a nation under god, so factually not correct. we are a nation of those that believe in god and we are a nation equally of people who do not believe in god.

it is like the same silliness to have battle saying if a child says god in a public school he would be kicked out

to make an easy arguement for agenda solely for drama

[kenny blankenship]

13. Compulsory Protestantism Masquerading as an unbiased Universal

It's sneaky how some Xtians try to pretend their religion is actually a one size fits all respect for religions, without self-preferring bias. Like you say:
"we are a nation of those that believe in god and we are a nation equally of people who do not believe in god."

There are plenty of Americans including some among the Founding plantation owners who did not believe in A God. And there are also some who believe in a plurality of Gods, like Animists and the Hindus do, as well as some other polytheists who believe in 3 Gods, plus the Devil and Mary.
But Xtians like to pretend they aren't elevating their own religion by such language, just "acknowledging" the Sacred.

Same as their idea of a non-denominational form of prayer in public schools. Silently bowed heads each seated at his own desk, not kneeling, not chanting, not genuflecting or standing while bobbing the head up and down. Just sitting in silence. WHich just "happens" to be the form of prayer most characteristic of Protestant Churches.

Totally unintentional, I'm sure!

[Jeebo]

17. Are you the Ken Blankenship who ...

... taught P.E. at Albert G. Parrish High School in Selma, Alabama, in the early 1960s? If so, you were my P.E. teacher in the seventh grade!

Ron

[kenny blankenship]

18. Nope

I'm not even this one.

[Mojambo]

14. With or without God, I won't say it

I don't think it's particularly healthy to pledge unconditional allegiance to anything but Reason and Nature.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

19. Ugh!!!! Pledge allegiance to Nature?

Dear God, keep the Calvinists out of that pledge. And anyone who believes in Manifest Destiny (I'm looking at you Jefferson) need not come to that pledge.

No thanks.

Perhaps Reason, unless we include Plato, Hegel, and Hitler.

[Jeebo]

16. I have a problem with almost every point ...

... in the pledge.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America ... "

I won't "pledge allegiance" to ANY piece of multi-colored cloth, or to any other inanimate object. Neither will I bow down before it, genuflect before it, make obeisance to it, pay homage to it or worship it in any other way. Isn't this idolatry?

" ... and to the republic for which it stands ... "

Well, maybe. It depends on how you define the words "pledge" and "allegiance." I am an American and I do love my country, but that doesn't mean I will slavishly go along with literally anything it does. That's the "My country, right or wrong" or "America, love it or leave it" mentality, which I believe is decidedly UNpatriotic.

" ... one nation ... "

This is the only point I actually have no problem with. It obviously IS one nation ... well, is it really? I'll reserve the right to reflect on this one and change my mind about it later.

" ... under God ... "

Whether you believe in God or not, it's highly debatable as to whether the U.S.A. really IS "under" him, whatever the hell that means. If we really ARE "under God," why the hell do we have the ANTI-Christ in control of our military, invading, conquering and occupying other countries? I could go on and on about THAT ...

" ... indivisible ... "

Think about this one, folks. Is the U.S.A. REALLY "indivisible"? Has this issue ever REALLY been settled? No, the Civil War didn't settle it. All that happened then was that the Union army forced the secessionist states back into the Union literally at gunpoint. Abraham Lincoln was prepared to go to great lengths to PREVENT the courts from settling the issue of whether any state has the legal constitutional right to secede. He was even going to start arresting Supreme Court justices to keep them from ruling on that issue. After the war, federal officials dropped treason charges and released Jefferson Davis after holding him for two years. Why didn't they try him for treason? Because they were terrified that the courts would rule that Davis was not guilty of treason because he wasn't a U.S. citizen but a leader of a FOREIGN country whose member states had legally and constitutionally seceded from the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe the courts have ever settled this issue. Until somebody can show me some obscure arcane court ruling that clearly settles the issue of whether any state has the legal constitutional right to secede, I will not accept the pledge of allegiance's claim that the United States is "indivisible".

" ... with liberty and justice for all."

Oh, puh-LEEZE! Just look around you and tell me that the noble ideals of "liberty and justice for all" is something that we are paying more than lip service to! The only way I will agree with this final point in the pledge of allegiance is if it is being held up as something lofty and noble for us to strive for, but in reading the pledge I don't think that's what it means at all, I believe it is presented as a naive starry-eyed patriotic claim that it is something we have actually ACHIEVED.

The pledge of allegiance is just patriotic propaganda, pure and simple.

Ron