Red Skelton - Pledge of Allegiance

[fdiron]

Pledging ones allegiance to the country described by Red Skelton and to the U.S. are two totally different things.  Religious issues aside, I don't think children should be required to swear an oath of loyalty every day.  When I think about how many times I have said the pledge of allegiance in school, that picture of draftees being sworn into the Army during Vietnam comes to mind. Why not create a pledge of allegiance to uphold the constitution or a pledge to uphold a just and righteous goverment?  Or do away with the pledge entirely, which would be the best choice.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Eagler
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?

politics - pure and simple

Yep.  Membership drive via silly court room decisions...by the way, that judge stayed his own decision.

[Skuzzy]

Why Wingnut?

I am not a religious person, depending on how you define that term, but they are just words.  No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone.  To my knowledge, words are only inflammatory if the person listening chooses to make then so.

I have neither seen nor heard any logical arguments which should force a change of anything.  The pledge has been this way for over 40 years and all of a sudden it is an issue.  Seems to go to exatcly what I am saying.

Someone finally chose to make it mean something which is inflammatory.

Quite silly if you ask me.

[Wingnut_0]

Originally posted by Eagler
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?

politics - pure and simple

I wasn't around then.  Ppl have been protesting that use for years, and many other things, but politicians won't listen to ppl they refer to as not a threat to their residency in some gov. institution.

That and the fact that voices are much easier heard now than in the 50's when ppl were paranoid about communist, and if you didn't attend you small town church you were seen as an outcast.  In many respects it's still that way today in small town america.

[J_A_B]

"That phrase was added to mean "god" as in the Xian god. It doesn't support Joe Blow's organized Falwell money collecting church, it supports the belief in the Xian god by it's use. "

Exactly!

Now read the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Notice that the government is prohibited from supporting established religions.....it is NOT prohibited from using symbols of faith.    I take that to mean the government can proclaim its belief in God all it wants to as long as it doesn't begin supporting any particular Church.    

What it amounts to is IMO those who dislike that phrase in the Pledge are probably going to be stuck with it because, as offensive as that phrase might be to some people, it doesn't represent any single specific Church.     The best thing to do, IMO, is abstain from using that phrase if you disagree with it.

Wingnut:  You also make a very interesting point about how trying to force people to say "under god" if they don't really mean it is against Christian values in the first place.   IMO the lawmakers in congress should think about that.  Even if it IS legal to have that phrase in the Pledge, doesn't mean it's necessarily fair to the entire population.

J_A_B

[Wingnut_0]

Originally posted by Skuzzy


No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone.  

Quite silly if you ask me.

Your question is open ended.  Why do any words have meaning.  When you tell your Mom or Wife or kids you love them, what makes them have meaning?  What makes those 2 words in the pledge have less meaning than the rest?  

Words ARE action, it's how we define ourselves, communicate, catagorize, show anger, love, empathy, and numerous other traits.  It's how we try our best to label things that we have a hard time describing.  Words are concrete and made so by belief behind the sounds.  Prayers are action, the Pledge is action.  Sticks and Stones aside, words can hurt or cause things because of their use.  A co-worker says things to tarnish your reputation, or harm your job in your employers eyes, that several ppl believe, would that bother you?  Maybe so, maybe not.

[Furious]

Skuzzy,
 
you wrote:  "No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone. "

Explained it or not, you know they do.  Otherwise noone would be bothered by the spewings on channel 1.  Noone would mind being called an amazinhunk.

If you are ambivilent, say so...but don't pretend the word "god" has no meaning attached to and can just be ignored.



Plenty of places for religious discussion and prayer; forcing it on elementry students is wrong.

I love my country and I do not believe in god.  Why do I have to participate in someone else' make-believe?  I don't and that is the point.


F.

[narsus]

Eagler

I am not sure if it is just politics anymore, for the record. I am not a religious person. This has been building for years that I have seen, I remember in high school (for me late eighties) being the only one in my home room who stood for the pledge. I didn't do it for the words themselves I did it for the people who died for me to have the life I had. No one has respect for anyone anymore, holding doors open for people, saying thank you, saying bless you when someone sneezes, tipping well etc. I was never in the military per se (went to Maritime College for a spell), I dont go to church. I believe in evolution not creationism etc. I do believe in treating your fellow man with compassion and respect, I don't treat people differently due to race, religion, or beliefs. I try to do the right thing and have a good moral compass.

I don't want a child because I don't like what this country and the world is becoming. I believe the human race will destroy itself within the next 3 generations personally. But today I still stand for the pledge and what it represents, I let those around me ignore it, and indulge in their own devices, I know what it means to me.

[Thrawn]

If they are all "just words", why would you bother saying them at all??


We use words to communicate ideas.  Words have meaning.  Otherwise we wouldn't use them.

Why not say, One Nation under Thrawn?    I mean, heck if they're just words why not.



Another thing, if it were just words, I strongly doubt that there would be this much debate over the issue.

[Wingnut_0]

Jab,

While I see your point, Establishment doesn't mean a church.  It can mean a house, or business (well ok church's might as well be a business).

But here's another use of that word:  a group of people who hold power in a society or social group and dominate its institutions

To me that's always read, that the gov. shall not favor one group of ppl's (ie. establishment) of religion over another.  Christianity is a religion.  Properly defined, the different church's are just sects.

{edited with earlier definitions:}

In 1766, Samuel Johnson suggested five meanings of "establishment."

1. To settle firmly, to fix unalterably.

2. To settle in any privilege or possession; to confirm.

3. Settle regulation; form; model.

4. Foundation; fundamental principle.

5. Allowance; income; salary.

Johnson's first four definitions corresponded to the usage in the King James version: setting up something permanently or firmly. Johnson's fifth meaning was, however, new. An establishment was linked to money, although not in the context of taxation and without any particular suggestion that money was linked to a church or a religion. John Ash agreed that the word could mean "an allowance, a salary." Thomas Sheridan in 1780 and Noah Webster in 1806 concurred.

[Nifty]

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."  - Dwight D. Eisenhower.

That is what he said as he authorized the addition of the words "under God" (notice the capital G) to the Pledge in 1954.  The above quote is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a federal endorsement of religion, regardless of whether it is a specific faith or not.  The rest will be my intepretation.  Now, the word "God" is a proper noun, almost ALWAYS referring to the god of the Jewish or Christian faith (deity in the Holy Bible.)  From this, "under God" as intended by the President of the United States when the change was adopted is an endorsement for the deity that's represented in the Holy Bible.  Therefore, the 9th Circuit Court made the correct, albeit 99.999999% unpopular, ruling.

Personally, no matter what happens in this issue, it won't change the way I say the Pledge.  I've left out the words "under God" about the past 15 years.  I don't know if people noticed or not.  They were too busy giving me interesting looks when I didn't participate in the led prayers over the PA system before high school football games.  (thankfully, THAT has been ruled against and upheld.)

[Skuzzy]

Missing the point, maybe my poor excuse on representing what I am trying to say.

You tell your family you love them.  It is up to them how they take that,..it is not up to you.

Interpretation is what I am trying to express.  Words can be interpreted anyway you want.  If they are written, they usually can be subjected to a wider interpretation, as we do not have the author to say it exactly how it was supposed to be said in an emotional context.

Saying the words does not constrain anyone to believing them.  How I choose to look at words will be different than you may choose to view them.  Nothing wrong with that and is pretty much the basis of our freedom.

If you choose to place an emotional/religious context to the words you speak, it is your choice and only your choice to do so.  If you choose to be objective about it, then it is your choice as well.

Words work well that way.  I place nothing significant on the phrase in question.  I see no issue with my children being exposed to different thoughts.  If I do not like those thoughts, or if they go against what I choose to believe, then I explain that to my children and let them choose.  Again,..that is how I choose to handle it.

Great thing about our country, we have choices.  None of those choices should be forced on anyone.  Expression of thought is a basic freedom.  Someone wrote those words down in 1954, for whatever reason.  Those words are an expression of a thought, but the original thought is being lost in the rhetoric of todays environment.

Objectively looking at it and saying it,..what harm has come from the last 40 plus years of this phrase being in our pledge of allegiance?  What harm will come in the future?  How do your children feel about reciting it?

I look at myself, who had to say the pledge everyday at school for 10 years and I do not see a religious zealot, I do not see myself as being conditioned in any way, shape, or form from the pronunciation of the pledge.
But then, I never attached the pledge of allegiance to something as personal as my religious beliefs.  No one told me it was about religion and no one told me I would beleive in this God.

I can see no religous oppression here.  I just cannot fathom the problem.  I guess I am too ignorant to understand it.

Also note, I am not arguing with anyone.  I am stating my opinion.  You have yours, and that is fine by me.  Allow me mine.

[Cobra]

Hijack!!

Skuzzy is posting, they MUST be close to 1.10!

Now back to more mundane and trivial matters

Cobra

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
People are turning this into a religious issue.  They are just words on paper or spoken.  It takes people to distort said words into some other agenda.

God is a word.  That is all it is.  If you chose to unite that word to something other than an omnipotent being (the defination), then it is your choice and you have your right to your opinion.

I think it is a sad commentary on how we choose to twist things around to meet some agenda that would cause angst among people.

Tell me,...does saying the phrase, "Under God" dictate you believe in any God?  To me, saying this is just an acceptance of being a citizen of the United States.  My pledge of allegiance to my country is in my heart, and the words of the pledge are just an acknowledgement to others I am proud to be a citizen of the United States.

Whether you believe in any religion or not is irrelevant, in my opinion.  For me, it is about believing in my country.  Make it what you will, as it is certainly your choice to do so.

ROCK ON SKUZZY!!

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Furious

I love my country and I do not believe in god.  Why do I have to participate in someone else' make-believe?
F.

You don't.  Please direct me to who is forcing anyone to say the pledge of allegience.  Even back in 71-72 when I was a 1st grader there were kids who didn't participate.  And I don't remember a single adverse incident on them for it.  Make your choice and let the people who WANT TO say "under god" do so.