Pledge of Allegiance BANNED!

reply to post by phoenix103

"oath to defend your country" ???

in which verse do you find those words or any implication?
our forces are voluntary and the pledge states no such thing.
It is in remembrance of the Republic and those who died so the Flag may Fly. what is wrong with that?

curious question ... are ppl objecting because of the phrase "under God" or because it was written by a man who engaged socialist views?

if the answer is the latter ... what exactly are you suggesting?
that we eliminate anything written by a socialist?
and that'd be an example of what? certainly not anything representing America.
if not one of the above, what really is the conflict?

IF parents teach their children early on, there should be no conflict ... respect is earned and our American ancestors certainly earned it.

reply to post by Honor93


It doesn't matter, its all about embedding patriotism at a young age before a child has had an opportunity to consider their beliefs for themselves.

As i said, its brainwashing. I'm grateful we don't have such a bizarre system in this country.

reply to post by rarelibra


You want to show how free your country is by dictating how others should act and think?

Who said Americans didn't do irony?

>Americans don't go around trying to change the pledges, themes, anthems, or flags of any other nation.

Are you for real?!

Take a look at this list: academic.evergreen.edu...

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Honor93

 

It doesn't matter, its all about embedding patriotism at a young age before a child has had an opportunity to consider their beliefs for themselves.

As i said, its brainwashing. I'm grateful we don't have such a bizarre system in this country.

sooooo, you are saying that as a child, you had the opportunity to be loyal (or declare such) to another country? odd, i hadn't heard of that before ... not for any child, anywhere on the planet.
so, how does your country (not govt) instill 'patriotism' in anyone, regardless of age ?

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by rarelibra

 

You want to show how free your country is by dictating how others should act and think?

Who said Americans didn't do irony?

>Americans don't go around trying to change the pledges, themes, anthems, or flags of any other nation.

Are you for real?!

Take a look at this list: academic.evergreen.edu...

edit on 9-1-2011 by phoenix103 because: (no reason given)

hahahahaha, your link doesn't indicate any of the 'above' -- "Americans don't go around trying to change the pledges, themes, anthems, or flags of any other nation."

hence, rarelibra is correct. Americans are not known for changing any of the listed above. including any pledge to any nation.

also, your link reference doesn't indicate that in a majority of the listed conflicts, the US was either 1. defending another 2. invited 3. requested 4. or attacked, initially.
There are two sides of every story and that link shamefully ignores the obvious.
Also, considering the US is barely 200 yrs old, we aren't old enough to garner such a distinction ... "listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions" ... however, even if we have had the 'most foreign interventions', that still isn't the same as 'incursions' and many other countries lead the way in that arena.
and, incursions lead to many more civilian deaths than any 'intervention' ... not saying that i approve (i don't) ... just proving your link is 'void of the whole story'.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

as much as i agree with this statement and experience ... how does reciting the pledge correlate with prejudices?? i am not following your logic there.
prejudice and politics aren't equal or even related. prejudice and the pledge ... well, they all start with Ps, maybe that's it

Why would you read this as having anything directly related to the pledge? Did you actually read the whole paragraph (point). It was also in response to a previous post. It can't be taken out of context.

"My mother raised me to not have any prejudices against people. I was shocked to find out one day she was race prejudice and asked her about it. She said she was raised in a different time - - - that she raised me without prejudice to live in My Time - - not hers."

. . . she raised me without prejudice to live in My Time - - not hers

reply to post by Honor93


Believe that if you like. The rest of the world know the reality of US interventionalist policy.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

I live without God in my life and I still somehow manage to live with morals and do no harm to others, not because someone will punish me in the afterlife, or because it was commanded to me by some guy in the sky, but because it's the right thing to do. I wish more people could do that, but apparently you have to have the threat of judgment from on high in order to be an upstanding person, or so your point would dictate.

Back on topic, I wonder if those who complain about the apparent pettiness of those who would like God removed from the pledge would feel the same if it said under Goddess, or Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, or Elvis, or Barney, or Spongebob.

And just to state, I do believe in something spiritual, I just don't know what it is, and I don't believe that it interacts with us, and I certainly don't believe that it judges us or dictates how we should live our lives. But I look at the universe in all it's majesty and I feel a profound awe, and I am humbled at the immenseness and interwoveness of everything and that is where my spirituality lies.

Originally posted by Taliesien333

I live without God in my life and I still somehow manage to live with morals and do no harm to others, not because someone will punish me in the afterlife, or because it was commanded to me by some guy in the sky, but because it's the right thing to do.

YES!

As the pledge is meant for ALL citizens - - - of which many are Atheists/Agnostics - - - God should not and never should have been a part of it.

Its just wrong in every way for God to be in the pledge - - starting with the guy who wrote it.

But besides that - - I simply do not condone children pledging to anything beyond their comprehension or immediate understanding (Pledging a Brownie oath would be immediate understanding - so that is OK).

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Annee

 

as much as i agree with this statement and experience ... how does reciting the pledge correlate with prejudices?? i am not following your logic there.
prejudice and politics aren't equal or even related. prejudice and the pledge ... well, they all start with Ps, maybe that's it

Why would you read this as having anything directly related to the pledge? Did you actually read the whole paragraph (point). It was also in response to a previous post. It can't be taken out of context.

"My mother raised me to not have any prejudices against people. I was shocked to find out one day she was race prejudice and asked her about it. She said she was raised in a different time - - - that she raised me without prejudice to live in My Time - - not hers."

. . . she raised me without prejudice to live in My Time - - not hers

why? because the topic is about the Pledge ... why wouldn't i anticipate or look for correlation?
yes, i read the whole paragraph ... did you find my response facetious? "as much as i agree with this statement and experience"

i didn't take it out of context, i was trying to find some. (in relation to the topic)
it 'appears' as though you believe the Pledge is from a 'different time' and perhaps should be left there.

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Honor93

 

Believe that if you like. The rest of the world know the reality of US interventionalist policy.

ya know, just during my lifetime, we could discuss the german incursions, russian, lebanese, ethiopian, iranian, israeli/palestine, turkish, saudi, chinese and i could go on but i assure you this, every one of these countries has a history dating much farther back than the US ... do try to see the 'whole' picture.

right or wrong, agree or disagree isn't the discussion ... you claim partial truths ... i clarified, simple.
and back to the original statement ... America doesn't go around trying to change National anthems of others. why can't/won't you admit the truth?

Originally posted by Honor93

i didn't take it out of context, i was trying to find some. (in relation to the topic)
it 'appears' as though you believe the Pledge is from a 'different time' and perhaps should be left there.

You did take it out of context.

And no - - it had nothing to do with the Pledge being from a different time.

reply to post by Annee

Its just wrong in every way for God to be in the pledge - - starting with the guy who wrote it.

we agree about the "god" statement ... i don't believe it has any place there.
but, the 'guy who wrote it' Bellamy, didn't include God ... what is your beef with him?
see an original, hand-written copy here: www.lib.rochester.edu...

true, naturalization doesn't occur until age 18 or above but since this is a requirement, when would you start teaching it? 30 days before the test?

U.S. Citizenship Test: The Pledge of Allegiance

One part of U.S. citizenship is to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is a statement that U.S. citizens make to show that they are loyal Americans and that they believe in the principles of democracy and liberty.

source: www.cliffsnotes.com...
also, considering the 'purpose' stated above ... to show loyalty and belief in the principles of democracy and liberty ... don't you begin teaching these 'principles' when they're in diapers??
i did (also while a daycare mgr) ... by the time kindergarten arrives, the basics are already there (or should be)

Originally posted by Honor93

. . . . but, the 'guy who wrote it' Bellamy, didn't include God ... what is your beef with him?

You read/interpret into - - stuff that is not there.

You want to show me how I implied in any way that I have a beef with Bellamy?

I lean Socialist/Atheist. I would not have a beef with Bellamy.

Originally posted by Honor93
and your blanket comment is BS ... was then and still is now.
The Pledge is not, was not and has not been perpetuated as some socialist indoctrination.

In which post did I say it was?

As it was originally written it's a pledge to the republic, for which the flag stands. It was written by a christian socialist, baptist minister in 1892 for a magazine. Something that so many people forget that I thought it needed stating in my first post in this thread.

The post that started this, was you demanding proof that it was little more than an advertising jingle to sell flags.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Honor93

. . . . but, the 'guy who wrote it' Bellamy, didn't include God ... what is your beef with him?

You read/interpret into - - stuff that is not there.

You want to show me how I implied in any way that I have a beef with Bellamy?

I lean Socialist/Atheist. I would not have a beef with Bellamy.

ummm, this was your single, stand alone sentence ...

Its just wrong in every way for God to be in the pledge - - starting with the guy who wrote it

please indicate which part i 'took out of context' or read/interpreted into or wasn't there?

You want to show me how I implied in any way that I have a beef with Bellamy?

not particularly, i'm busy but it was in a previous post or i wouldn't have asked.
you know what? i don't lean socialist and i also don't have a beef with Bellamy. he was an integral part of our history ... my opinion of his influence being good or bad really doesn't matter, does it? still doesn't change the Pledge that he wrote (which hasn't been recited by children for nearly 75 yrs) or the 'indoctrination' that may or may not have been intended.

i can agree to disagree, you're glad/happy it's banned, i want it 'modified' and encouraged ... that ok with you?
attacking my grammar, sentence structure or politics does Not change the topic or issue at hand, but thanks for your contributions anyway.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Honor93

i didn't take it out of context, i was trying to find some. (in relation to the topic)
it 'appears' as though you believe the Pledge is from a 'different time' and perhaps should be left there.

You did take it out of context.

And no - - it had nothing to do with the Pledge being from a different time.

arguing is not necessary and apparently not your strong suit.
i found no relative context when i read it, that is why i asked ... believe what you will.
thanks for answering. considering your agreement with the 'banning' of the pledge, can you see why your statement was 'received' that way?

Originally posted by Honor93

ummm, this was your single, stand alone sentence ...

"Its just wrong in every way for God to be in the pledge - - starting with the guy who wrote it"

It is NOT a stand alone sentence. Again you took one sentence out of context. Below is the full text.

"As the pledge is meant for ALL citizens - - - of which many are Atheists/Agnostics - - - God should not and never should have been a part of it.

Its just wrong in every way for God to be in the pledge - - starting with the guy who wrote it."

Do you know the history of the Pledge? Do you know anything about Francis Bellamy (the guy who wrote it)?

* Bellamy "viewed his Pledge as an 'inoculation' that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the 'virus' of radicalism and subversion

* In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

Originally posted by Annee

The fight to remove "In God We Trust" from our money is an ongoing fight.

I've known people who take a black marker and mark it out on all their bills.

Hey Annee,
Thanks for the info; however, I was curious about legitimate documented protests... Proposed bills, legal cases etc. or someone that literally will not even use currency. The black marker, while satisfying the individual, doesn't do much in terms of getting it removed permanently. I suppose you could argue that if everyone crossed it off every dollar they had, in a way it would be removed from a lot of currency... I feel like I'm getting a little off topic though, it was more just a thought that popped in my head that got me thinking...