Printable View
What the Pledge of allegiance means. Something we forget too often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfz2XDXaeqc
Not to start up another debate, but I still say the pledge this way, if I included the two new words "under god" the whole thing would be nothing but artifice.
Well, I suspect you kicked over a can of worms with your last statement. I have to disagree (respectfully and without heated intent) and I can best support my position with this quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:
"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."
Yeah, I was hoping not to start up a debate, but I can't say those two words as I find the pledge to be more truthful to my taste without them.
I'm an athiest, I'll pledge to the flag, but not to a country represented by god.
+1 Ken.....
I love Mr Skelton's pledge of allegiance!
Hearing a person speak so genuinely is always a humbling reminder of what we should be feeling when the pledge is recited. It seems we get too caught up arguing over the trees and forget to realize that we are all one forest.
I for one am not religious, but I said the pledge in it's current state of entirety when I was in school and never thought twice about it because it had become conventional, and the overall meaning was the same with or without those two words. But a person should never be forced to say it if they don't want to. That would be completely against the spirit of our nation. To each his own I guess.
It would certainly be a shame, Red. Maybe we shouldn't give people the opportunity to complain and just leave those two words out. I'd rather not argue about articles of faith on which we might and do disagree, and instead celebrate that faith we all share.
As so often has been argued, an elected official of our elected government with the full support of the people has said that the pledge should include those two words. If you don't like them perhaps you should do something about it.
Wildtim, I love your Harold MacMillan quote.:tu
I don't particularly mind them. Like the originator of this thread, I just don't say them. But I do think it would be a shame if those who were more offended by them than I managed to get the whole pledge removed from our schools because of it. The things people get worked up about are pretty silly sometimes. BTW Tim, do you enjoy needling me, or are you just bored?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Skelton says it all.
Eisenhower added the words "under God" during the Red Scare of the 1950's, as a reaction to Communism. My brother belongs to a fundamentalist church and is forever sending me "America is Christian" type propaganda. His arguments collapse like deflated balloons in the face of historical fact (i.e there is no reference to Christ in either the Declaration or Constitution, other than the date reference to "In the Year of our Lord".....even Jefferson's original text was edited to read "self evident", as the original text was said to have theological tones. I was raised that your faith stops at my nose and my freedom trumps your faith (with deference to Mssr. Voltaire).
I'm not sure kids today can even say the Pledge anymore....nor can most Americans sing the "Star-Spangled Banner", recite the opening of the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Gettysburg Address......then again, so many can't even form a coherent sentence.
I think I was born about 200 years too late.
:shrug:
And then of course those who weren't complaining before will begin to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist
There will always be opportunity to complain, regardless of whether or not you agree that it's there
Anyway, doesn't general faith in God form a central role in the founding documents, principles, and philosophies of the USA? Wasn't it is a decent respect to the opinions of mankind to declare the causes which impelled the revolutionaries to assume the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them? If someone feels that their nation is not under God, then why should they continue hold that nation to providing them with the rights that that nation's government admitted was afforded them?
If the nation of the USA is not under God, then its principle founding document no longer projects its declarations onto the people of the USA
There are things to find unity in other than a God. The vast number of widely varying religions in the world ought to prove that people can get along without believing in God and that there is some underlying human bond. I am not saying everyone gets along, that's ridiculous. But I find it uncanny how people can come together in situations where they depend on one another for some reason and generally find their differences to be negligible.
For that reason the Founding Fathers assured every citizen an equal right to serve the nation and hold office. "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)
But somehow we've departed from that equality we once fought and died for. Currently, NINE states in the U.S.A. have articles in their state constitutions discrimintating against Atheists most of which ban an Atheist from holding office or testifying in court. Can we really say that a person is less of a person because of their spiritual beliefs? It's just logically inconsistent.
History has proven that people are just people, no matter whether they are black, white, brown, combinations thereof, male, female, N. American, S. American, European, Asian, Russian, Indian, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic or even Atheist. People are the same. Period.
It is a person's character that determines whether they are "good" or "bad" or "unfit to hold public office" not their ethnicity, cultural choice or beliefs.
My only point in this is that people of every creed and culture reside in America the vast majority of which are legal citizens, and that little things like "under god" are essentially harmless but are a constant reminder to a large portion of legitimate citizens that they are outsiders. They are somehow not as American as the rest of the country. And that is disgraceful in this day and age with the history of cultural diversity that we have.
I'm not saying I'd die for that cause but it is one that weighs on my mind as any injustice should.
Can of worms aside, thanks for refreshing some fond memories, Nickelking. As my sig implies, I enjoyed Red's TV show for many years. He was politically conservative and by the time of his monologue here, I was not, but that doesn't matter. He was screamingly --and sometimes poignantly-- funny and deeply human. From all I've seen and read, I think he was a fine man.
http://www.redskelton.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Skelton
"I personally believe we were put here to build and not to destroy. So if by chance some day you're not feeling well and you should remember some silly little thing I've said or done and it brings back a smile to your face or a chuckle to your heart - then my purpose as your clown has been fulfilled. Goodnight and may God bless."
You cannot logically assume the premise of your conclusion in your argument.:nono: This is known as begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
The founding fathers wanted economic freedom, religious freedom, and general autonomy to maintain both of these things among other desires. Never forget that parsing and paraphrasing are dangerous as they remove context. I would also leave everyone with an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson Concludes: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."
This is my sentiment exactly.
As for the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, I have no problem saying them. I do have a problem with a state religion. For instance, the Taliban.
Respectfully to everyone,
-Rob
Interesting. I like to use a lot of logical fallacy in light discussions because of the response it can generate, but I begged the question here because I knew it would get my point across without too much effort on my part to present my argument. :w
So although I admit to parsing and paraphrasing for the gain of my object (Maybe I should run for office?) I still know that the government of the USA included the providence and provision of God in some if not many of its founding philosophies. I also know it was a reflection of the guiding principles of those who shaped the founding documents to say that God grants all men certain rights that the new government should be designed to protect. There is not as strong an explicit justification for the government to protect those rights as because they are God-given although I'm sure other implicit justifications are there just the same.
:OT By the way, for some reason I don't think that a government-prescripted admission that its nation is under God demands the reflection of an instituted state religion.