The Pledge stays as it is...

[jameseb]

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers, Mr. Laswell, explained the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to the class word for word. In 1969, Skelton wrote it down and eventually recorded it. This is his recollection of the lecture, followed by a sad, prescient observation of his own:

http://www.spiritisup.com/pledgeofallegiance.html

Thanks for sharing that, Paula. The site does take a moment to load, but it was nice hearing ole Red again, and his thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thanks again.

 

[aeroz19]

Renegade,

That speaks for you but not the millions of those who either do not believe or have differing beliefs. I do not need a god to put any oaths I may give into a more proper perspective, neither do I need a god to make a vow I give have a moral stipulation. I can do these things on my own honor and morals.

Most Americans believe in a God of some type; atheists are in the minority. If you don't want to aknowledge that this is "one nation under God" then don't say it.

Gradually, though, you will win. "God" will be taken out of "country." Then we'll become weak and another country will take over; America will be no more.

Examples of countries who stripped God out: communist Russia, communist Germany. The fall of them was great. Russia was probably the closest thing there was to hell. You probably attribute Russia's fall to other factors, as atheists always do, but it's as I've said: when you take God out, you're going down.

 

[aeroz19]

Except justices are appointed precisely to avoid any populist politics that might arise. When we elect judges, we get chaos. Case in point: Roy Moore ran for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and won, essentially on the platform "I'll hang the Ten Commandments in my courtroom."

I'm sorry, I missed the chaos part.

 

[aeroz19]

I feel the same way when I see people who think that they have the right to impose religious beliefs onto children. It would be a far better world when people finally free themselves of their mythologies and embrace reason.

It would be a far better world if everyone could embrace reason by seeing clearly that which is of God and that which is of Satan. Most people would get off their platforms of pomp and arrogance and realize they don't have the answers and that in fact, they were wrong.

 

[reverend B]

It would be a far better world if everyone could embrace reason by seeing clearly that which is of God and that which is of Satan. Most people would get off their platforms of pomp and arrogance and realize they don't have the answers and that in fact, they were wrong.

great witness. i am sure that attitude toward people has been very effective for you in winning souls to Christ. to paraphrase your technique, i should basically say "nice try but i am right and u are an idiot!" as they ask in the sales game, what is your closing ratio with this technique? i am sure it is very high, as it is hard to miss the love!

 

[JPPT1974]

Next up the atheist and liberal ACLU will step up to the plate. Don't be shocked nor surprise.

 

[the_cheat]

Examples of countries who stripped God out: communist Russia, communist Germany. The fall of them was great. Russia was probably the closest thing there was to hades. You probably attribute Russia's fall to other factors, as atheists always do, but it's as I've said: when you take God out, you're going down.

Heh. How many ex-Soviets have you interacted with, Aeroz? It was a bad place to live, but it wasn't hades. People went through their everyday lives just like people do in any other country. Had families, had jobs, had interests. I'm not defending the Soviet government - they did any number of horrible things - nor deny the atrocities and privations that were inflicited on people, but I am pointing out that the USSR was hardly, for example, Hiroshima after the bomb.

mod edit

 

[crazyfingers]

It would be a far better world if everyone could embrace reason by seeing clearly that which is of God and that which is of Satan. Most people would get off their platforms of pomp and arrogance and realize they don't have the answers and that in fact, they were wrong.

I'm waiting for your evidence that a god or a satan exists. Please provide it now. Lacking such evidence, reason disctates that belief should be withheld.

 

[Paula]

I'm waiting for your evidence that a god or a satan exists. Please provide it now. Lacking such evidence, reason disctates that belief should be withheld.

Au contraire; reason would dictate that you have the right to abstain from reciting the Pledge.

 

[crazyfingers]

Au contraire; reason would dictate that you have the right to abstain from reciting the Pledge.

Of course I do. That's not the point as you should know perfectly well. The point is the government declaring the existence of a monotheist god, the judeo-christian god specifically, and teaching school children that it exists contrary to the establishment clause.

I ask as I have asked many timed before, what would christians be demanding if the government were to tell their children every day in school that no god exists?

Consider the question an exercise in the golden rule as well as the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.

 

[COAS]

So, a while back on a thread related to this topic, I posted a question (on an existing thread) that never got any response. I'll try again, though.

To the Christians who are in favor of "under God" remaining in the Pledge as is:

If, for whatever reason, a majority of the country were to convert to, say, Islam, overnight... would you be OK with the pledge being changed to "one nation, under Allah...

Majority rules? Ceremonial deism? Take your pick... yea or nay, would this be "harmless" and unimportant to you if your child was suddenly expected to recite this version of the pledge?

*hoping that the participants in this thread won't wimp out and refuse to answer like before*

 

[Philosoft]

I'm sorry, I missed the chaos part.

Chaos:

1) Moore campaigns for the office of Chief Justice. One of his slogans is "The Ten Commandments Judge," referencing the plaque he used to hang in his courtroom - which was deemed constitutional.

2) Moore is elected Chief Justice.

3) Moore foregoes the plaque for a two-ton granite monument, which naturally must be placed front-and-center in the rotunda in the middle of the night.

Presumably, you know the rest.

See there? Chaos. Moore's public recognition came almost entirely from his battle to hang his plaque. Would he have been a good, fair Chief Justice? Maybe. Who knows? Ensuring fair, speedy trials quickly became secondary to politicizing his religion - and not just his religion, mind you, but a not-so-subtle reminder that his God was a pretty angry, demanding, wrathful god once upon a time.

So, in conclusion, electing justices at pretty much any level is a bad idea.

 

[aeroz19]

Did Uncle Sam invent the pledge?.....

Does Uncle Sam have any say-so on how we the people say it?

........*drumroll*......................................................

 

[99Percent]

So, a while back on a thread related to this topic, I posted a question (on an existing thread) that never got any response. I'll try again, though.

To the Christians who are in favor of "under God" remaining in the Pledge as is:

If, for whatever reason, a majority of the country were to convert to, say, Islam, overnight... would you be OK with the pledge being changed to "one nation, under Allah...

Majority rules? Ceremonial deism? Take your pick... yea or nay, would this be "harmless" and unimportant to you if your child was suddenly expected to recite this version of the pledge?

Good question. What about "Under Buddha"? "Under Zeus"? "Under Quetzalcoatl"? "Under IPU"? "Under scjark"? (damn I forgot to capitalize the last one, I hope I don't go to hell for that...

 

[the_cheat]

Too bad "Uncle Sam" isn't a real person, huh?

Also, humorously enough, Shakespeare hasn't gotten up and told movie makers and stage directors to stop messing around with his plays. And Robert Frost hasn't yet chewed out my middle schoolers for heinously misreciting his poetry during oral exams.

 

[aeroz19]

I'm waiting for your evidence that a god or a satan exists. Please provide it now. Lacking such evidence, reason disctates that belief should be withheld.

Is this a recording?

 

[the_cheat]

Good question. What about "Under Buddha"? "Under Zeus"? "Under Quetzalcoatl"? "Under IPU"? "Under scjark"? (damn I forgot to capitalize the last one, I hope I don't go to hell for that...

"Under Cthulu," perhaps?

 

[Philosoft]

"Under Cthulu," perhaps?

I think whatever happens to be "under Cthulu" is usually properly called "dinner."

 

[the_cheat]

I think whatever happens to be "under Cthulu" is usually properly called "dinner."

Well, Soylent Green is people. It's PEOPLE.

 

[Lillithspeak]

[/color]
Rehnquist is off in la-la land here. Nowhere in Newdow's case does he claim the mere fact of his personal opposition to "under God" ought to be persuasive. This is basically Rehquist scolding Newdow for daring to stand up for the rights of the atheist minority in the first place.

He continues his abuse:"Shut up and sit down, Newdow. You won't be happy until no flag-draped 'Mercans can say the pledge, will you?"
Again, this is not the meat of Newdow's case. Newdow does not offer his "distaste" as his primary rationale.

O'Connor characterizes the placement of "under God" rather oddly:"Under God" is hardly 'found' in the Pledge as if its historical background was shrouded in mystery. We know exactly when it was added and for what reason. O'Connor claims later to understand these reasons:I'm not buying it, Sandra Day. Tell me about the phrase's primary purpose. Look at the political climate of the time. Look at the recorded words of President Eisenhower. Don't make me do all the work here.
This is just false. Whatever the original "character" of the pledge, it's clear that the author Bellamy, in historical context, wanted people to acknowledge the virtues of a strong centralized government. His intent was that people should pledge allegiance to the republic - a system of government - rather than any nation proper. To say that the subsequent additions to the pledge of "of the United States of America" and "under God" have not changed its "purpose" is to be ignorant of history.
Thomas is a virtually brainless Scalia-sycophant. That is all I have to say about that.

Very well said my friend. Too bad most of those who want the pledge to continue on the way it is will never understand your point. The fact that the religious right want the pledge to contain these words gives lie to the fact that it's not a religious observance doesn't it?