Pre-1950s Pledge of Allegiance

I saw this on Fox earlier today and found Rep. McDermott's actions priceless. www.foxnews.com...

"Everyday the House is in session, one member leads the Chamber in the Pledge of Allegiance. When it came to Rep. James McDermott's turn on Tuesday, he chose not to place his hand over his heart and he paused during the recitation to leave out the words "under God."

When Congressman McDermott was asked about his actions he indicated that this was the way he had learned the Pledge at age 6, more than a decade before the "under god" and placing your hand over your heart was added in 1954.

I am curious how this is going to play with the ongoing suit in California? But more importantly how many ATS members were aware of the 1954 change and what are your opinions on the Plege in general?

When I heard that Nancy Pelosi disagreed with him, I was pleasantly surprised. And his excuse that that was the way he learned the pledge, as if he wasn't aware of the 1954 change, is just bunk, and he knows it

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't have a very good record of having it's rulings stick. There have been some really dumb rulings out of that District, IMO

My question is, what are they gonna do if I say "One nation, under God" when I say the pledge. Arrest me?

I didn't know that the "under God" was added in the 50s. Thanks for the info.
As to my feelings about the pledge, well-
I think the pledge has no place in govt. meetings, schools, or really anywhere else for that matter. I mean its great to be a patriot I guess, but leading a group of people in pledging allegiance to a symbol or a flag just makes me think of those old movies of the Nazi Troops lined up in front of Hitler speaking from a podium with his giant red flag behind him. Of course I generally feel that way about any group chanting, prayer, etc. Especially during church services, its like a pack of brain washed zombies from a cheezy horror flick. We believe in God- the father almighty....blah blah blah- but then again for the most part, devout religious people are brainwashed fools so I guess it is appropriate. I want no part of it, too creepy! too disturbing!
To me whether the words under god are in the pledge or not makes no difference, the whole concept is stupid. However, I completely agree with the numerous courts that have struck those words down as unconstitutional (under a modern interpretation of the document).

I'm well aware of it, and it actually gives ammo to both sides as far as the case goes. I think McDermott was trying to make a loud political statement there, though. The fact that he paused for the "under God" part shows that he knew it; besides, he's heard it everyday for how long?

Originally posted by jsobecky
... My question is, what are they gonna do if I say "One nation, under God" when I say the pledge. Arrest me?

I've been wondering this too becky. IF the law banning 'under-God' is passed, I'm just going to say it anyway. Screw that hypocritical atheist fool and his contradictory 'problem'.

Originally posted by xenophanes85

Originally posted by jsobecky
... My question is, what are they gonna do if I say "One nation, under God" when I say the pledge. Arrest me?

I've been wondering this too becky. IF the law banning 'under-God' is passed, I'm just going to say it anyway. Screw that hypocritical atheist fool and his contradictory 'problem'.

I'm curious as to why it was necessary to change the original wording in the first place. To me adding the phrase "under god" and putting your hand across your heart are akin to changing the words to the Star Spangled Banner. If it wasn't broke why fix it?

It was changed durring the red scare. When some folks saw a commie spy around every corner, they decided to add "under God" to it to make your statement that much more powerful to people who believed in any God, and by putting your hand on your heart, it caused a psychological feeling in kids that made them take it that much more seriously.

Originally posted by junglejake
It was changed durring the red scare. When some folks saw a commie spy around every corner, they decided to add "under God" to it to make your statement that much more powerful to people who believed in any God, and by putting your hand on your heart, it caused a psychological feeling in kids that made them take it that much more seriously.

So the change was brought about by a bunch of paranoid Mcarthyists for nothing more than their own agenda of propaganda. And today Congressman Pelosi is pissing on a fellow congressman who obviously understands that fact more than she.

Truly pathetic.

Those are some very nice points Bleys ... valid enough to make me rethink my stance on the issue at hand.

[Edited on 4-30-04 by xenophanes85]

Well, you may not disagree with why it was changed. However, look at how this whole controversy got started, and why. I think this cause to remove it's beginnings are even more pathetic then why they changed it in the first place.

Seems pretty simple to me. If you want to prey, then prey. But please don't throw a prayer in the middle of a reminder of my support for my country.

I wrote a research paper in high school about how the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Bellamy, the writer of the Pledge, was an atheist and his original pledge did not have the words "under god" written in it. He was very much anti-Christian.

Now, the "under God" part was added during the Red Scare. Eisenhower said it was to put God on America's side and God against the "evil people". Hmmm, sound familiar?

Originally posted by Illmatic67
I wrote a research paper in high school about how the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a seporation of church and state?

Originally posted by xenophanes85

I've been wondering this too becky.

The name is jsobecky. Or John, if you prefer.

Originally posted by junglejake

Where in the constitution does it say there is to be a seporation of church and state?

True.

Separation of Church and State is an idea derived from the First Amendment and there is no actual law that states the separation of Church and State.

BUT

The first amendment states congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, so there you go.

"Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."

www.spiritual-answers.com...

City officials in Scotsdale, Ariz. have told a gallery owner there that he must remove a statue of Jesus from the sidewalk outside his gallery or face $5,000 a day in fines, reports the Arizona Republic.

Harold Lyon, owner of the Lyon Gallery, wants to leave the statue up through the Easter season but city officials say it has no place on public right-of-way. Jesus, along with nine other statues, must go, they say.

Lyon notes that he has had the nine other statues, including images of an Apache warrior praying to the gods and a life-size cowboy, in the same spot for well over a year. No one complained, he says, until he had the gall to put up Jesus.

Officials in Stanislaus County, Calif. removed a 40-year-old memorial from public property there because the monument included a cross and might infringe on rules about church-state separation, reports the Modesto Bee.

Officials brought in a front-end loader to move the eight-foot cross from its perch at Frank Raines Regional Park to private property nearby. They moved it after being told its presence may be unconstitutional.

The cross is a memorial to David Minniear, who was lost at sea in 1961. Minniear was the son of Ore Minniear, who directed county inmate work gangs that built the park.

These are just a few examples. But this doesn't really seem like freedom of religion to me.

Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government.

It seems like this letter written by Jefferson has been skewed to the point where it's having exactly the opposite effect he wanted. Rather then freedom of religion, we're being given freedom from religion...( That's starting to turn into one of my 2 catch phrases... )

Originally posted by junglejake
It seems like this letter written by Jefferson has been skewed to the point where it's having exactly the opposite effect he wanted. Rather then freedom of religion, we're being given freedom from religion...(

That's starting to turn into one of my 2 catch phrases...

)

There is no doubt that America DOES have the freedom OF religion.

What do you call churches, mosques, and temples all around the country? That's freedom OF religion. We as Americans have the freedom to practice any religion in the privacy of our own homes and the private institutions such as churches and mosques.

That is freedom OF religion.

But religion cannot be expressed or established in any government establishment such as a court house.

If you want to go worship and set up shrines then go to a church, not to a court house.

Originally posted by Bleys

So the change was brought about by a bunch of paranoid Mcarthyists for nothing more than their own agenda of propaganda. And today Congressman Pelosi is pissing on a fellow congressman who obviously understands that fact more than she.

Truly pathetic.

Or maybe the fellow congressman just hates any mention of God anywhere. I wouldn't give him too much credit for intelligence, given the way he's already compromised his credibility on his decision on this matter.

If it makes people feel better and more secure to say "under God", then who are we to take that away from them? If it offends you, just don't say it.

Originally posted by Illmatic67

There is no doubt that America DOES have the freedom OF religion.

What do you call churches, mosques, and temples all around the country? That's freedom OF religion. We as Americans have the freedom to practice any religion in the privacy of our own homes and the private institutions such as churches and mosques.

That is freedom OF religion.

But religion cannot be expressed or established in any government establishment such as a court house.

If you want to go worship and set up shrines then go to a church, not to a court house.

There's no doubt in my mind that America does have freedom OF religion, especially if you compare it to any other nation (that I know of (not England, look at the Irish deal)) in the world. However, I've noticed a concerted effort recently by the ACLU and individuals to try to remove it from the public eye.

You said religion cannot be expressed or established in any government establishment. Does that include a sidewalk as it did in the first story I quoted?

City officials in Scotsdale, Ariz. have told a gallery owner there that he must remove a statue of Jesus from the sidewalk outside his gallery

Note: emphesis added

The sidewalk isn't a government building. It was an attempt to force religion out of the public eye. To protect people from being offended (read from religion). I'm not saying we're to the point of having freedom FROM religion, but we are moving in that direction faster then we have been at any other point in our nation's history post-1850.

I find it strange to pledge allegiance to a flag. When you pledge allegiance to the flag, you are pledging your allegiance to an idol.

Anyways, it just seems that way to me.