Is The Pledge of Allegiance Valid Today?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
Remember that the pledge was invented before the abomination that many call political correctness. Aww yes the good old days when life was simple and everyone wasn't offended over everything. You have the choice to say those words and if you don't want to fine but don't try and take those words out. Also remember that this country was founded on religion.


Well, the original pledge did'nt have 'under god' in it, the original
pledge was thus:


I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands,
one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


It was written by a socialist minister.

It was'nt until 1954 that 'under god' was added to the pledge.


As to the pledge, well I think that it should'nt be a requirement,
and really should be something you choose to say, not something
you're obligated to.

Honestly, I consider the pledge to be a worthless waste of school
time.


As for myself, I don't stand or recite the pledge when they do it.




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It is often the ones that have the most difficulty standing, that one can find standing...




I will always stand for them...

I believe in the pledge for the same reasons you find them standing...


Semper



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
grady, you cited the declaration of independence
which is not part of the constitution
it wasn't even part of the articles of confederation

the rights of people are granted in the bill of rights
it outlines the things that the government cannot infringe



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Remember what the pledge says and implies. You are not pledging allegiance to any administration or such silliness. You are pledging allegiance to the principles that this country was founded upon.

And if you don't like the words "Under God", just don't say them.


Originally posted by BH
It's the first time I've run across someone who encourages people to refuse to say the pledge, which I have been doing for years.

Could you clarify? Have you been saying the pledge for years, or have you been encouraging people to refuse to say the pledge for years?

[edit on 9-1-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the rights of people are granted in the bill of rights
it outlines the things that the government cannot infringe


Read carefully. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. It is the first ten amendments. Moreover, the Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges all human right as deriving from our Creator and guarantees those rights.

Those facts are fundamental.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Read carefully. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. It is the first ten amendments. Moreover, the Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges all human right as deriving from our Creator and guarantees those rights.

Those facts are fundamental.


those aren't facts

the constitution doesn't mention the existence of a creator being
nor does it say rights come from it
i think you're confusing the constitution and the declaration of independance

can you quote a passage from the constitution (with a citation noting the article and section) that outlines said rights from said creator?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
You are correct these word do appear in the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution is a product of the same minds whose philosophies are not discrete from those that are imbodied in the Constitution.

The founders were clear in the assertion that men do not grant rights as that is a function of the Creator. Ours Constituion protects the natural rights of men.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

www.ushistory.org...



It was in 1776, however, with the publication of the Declaration of Independence, that the historical concept of sovereignty got turned upside down. Government wasn't sovereign and supreme, Jefferson declared to the world. Individuals are. And government officials are subordinate and inferior to the citizenry.

The Declaration emphasizes that men have been endowed with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist government. In other words, man's rights don't come from the king or from any other government official. Rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government.

It also emphasizes that the reason people call government into existence is to protect the exercise of these rights. That is, in the absence of government, antisocial people such as murderers, rapists, and thieves would make life quite miserable for everyone else. Therefore, government is needed to arrest, prosecute, and punish these types of people.

The quandary, of course, that our Founders faced was whether it was possible to bring a government into existence that would remain limited to an inferior and subordinate role rather than attempt to assume the more traditional sovereign and supreme role.

Thus the correct question is not "What rights does the Constitution give to the American people?" but rather "What powers does the Constitution grant to the government?" If a certain power is not enumerated, the government is not permitted to exercise it.

So the next time someone refers to your "constitutional rights," remind him that people's rights don't come from the Constitution. And if you really want to stimulate thinking, ask him whether he believes that today the federal government is destructive of the very rights it was designed to protect.

www.fff.org...

[edited for clarity]





[edit on 2007/1/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You are pledging allegiance to the principles that this country was founded upon.


Actually, you are pledging allegiance to the FLAG and to the Republic. Not the principles. I suppose each person holds their own meaning.



And if you don't like the words "Under God", just don't say them.


I don't. I don't say any of it.



Could you clarify? Have you been saying the pledge for years, or have you been encouraging people to refuse to say the pledge for years?


I have been refusing to say the pledge for years.
For these reasons:

Pledging to the flag, a symbol.
"Under God"
"indivisible" (we are more divided now that we've ever been and it's only going to get worse)
"With ... justice for all" Until all citizens (gay people, specifically) are granted the same rights and treated fairly, this is a lie.

It's all a lie to me. If I were to only say the parts I believed in, it wouldn't make any sense at all.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
One nation under the thumb of an opressive beuracracy, that strangles the life out of its citizens on a dialy basis.


That was great!



Originally posted by spinstopshere
Remember that the pledge was invented before the abomination that many call political correctness.


Yeah, remember also, that when it was 'invented', it didn't contain the words "under God".



Also remember that this country was founded on religion.


Oh, for Christ's sake! :shk:


Originally posted by FlyersFan
People without allegiance to this country are NOT Americans ...if they are not tied emotionally to this country and so they aren't Americans.


That's not true. We (as civilians) are not required to hold or express allegiance to this country, as long as we don't act in the interest of another country or against this one. All that's required to be an American is to be born here. You calling them NOT Americans is just an emotional opinion.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know why anyone today should be ashamed to, or constrained not to invoke the name of God in the public sphere.


I'm neither ashamed nor do I feel constrained. I just don't believe it. So I don't say it. It's really pretty simple. I don't have any problem with other people believing it or saying it.

Thanks for all the input on this thread. I had taken it off my subscribed list and it took off!


df1

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
It seems that bowing down to a graven image, the flag, is inconsistent with being a Christian according to the biblical passage below. Yet it seems that it is those that consider themselves Christian genuflecting to the flag most deeply. Congress added "under god" part as after thought in 1954.


Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:4-6 (Deuteronomy 5:8-10)



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
df1,

I kind of agree, except I don't "worship" the flag or the country. I serve..and Honor...



Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


Semper



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I kind of agree, except I don't "worship" the flag or the country. I serve..and Honor...




Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:


It's all semantics, anyway.

My point is that I don't have a problem with anyone saying the pledge.

Does anyone have a problem with me NOT saying it?



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I for one do not...

We all have the inherent right to live our lives as we please. As long as that does not harm another of course..

Semper



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You are correct these word do appear in the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution is a product of the same minds whose philosophies are not discrete from those that are imbodied in the Constitution.


well, now you're assuming too much about the minds of the founding fathers
we know they followed the philosophy of locke
that's about it as far as social theory



The founders were clear in the assertion that men do not grant rights as that is a function of the Creator. Ours Constituion protects the natural rights of men.

being endowed with rights from your "creator" simply means that you have rights because you exist as a human being
and even if my interpretation is wrong, just because the founding fathers believe that we have rights stemming from a creator, doesn't mean i have to acknowledge their belief that said creator exists

hell, with your line of reasoning, one could easily say atheists don't get rights because they don't acknowledge the being that some people from 1700s say our rights stem from
and that is a dangerous path to go down



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno


Interesting, I agree with you if you are an athiest. Otherwise wouldent Under God mean to you, YOUR god? not the christian idea of god but the personal diety that you believe in?

If however you are an athiest then by all means I would still say the pledge of aliegence but omit the under god bit and replace it with something that you believe in that this nation stands for.

How about one nation for freedom? Or one nation under the dollar? or One nation under the thumb of an opressive beuracracy, that strangles the life out of its citizens on a dialy basis. no wait scratch that last one, its not very patriotic.

The point is that Unless your personal belief does not include a god form then you should say that little bit but remember it's for you. Otherwise replace the words with something apropreate to you.


I'm still wondering just what exactly the words "under God" were meant to mean...
is it under God's divine rule...which God? since they all seem to chose to rule a little differently. and who or what is your God...that which you hold dearest to your heart? umm...ya...so, while one is pledging to place religious doctrine over country, another is pledging to put financial weath over country, and another, something else....nothing hypocritical here...lol...

or maybe it does mean our country "stands for God" as the post I quoted seems to think....lol...now, that's hypocritical...we torture, we're standing for God!!! ya, sure...

the pledge, at best seems to be a tad bit outdated to me...the US has changed, we're no longer that young, innocent country full of God-fearing people who are content with just the basics of life...
we rule the world now!



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I'm still wondering just what exactly the words "under God" were meant to mean...
is it under God's divine rule...which God?


It was meant to mean the Christio-Judaeic god, it really was just added
because people were, well lets just say not the brightest bunch at the
time.

The primary cause for adding it I think was that this was during the so
called 'red scare' and they viewed communists as godless, and since
they so hated commmunism they went out of there way to be everything
that was the opposite, and adding god to it was just one way to do that.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
everyone needs to remember that the tradition argument doesn't work when the pledge was created in 1892 and the words "under god" weren't added until flag day of 1954.

under god has been there for 53 years

it wasn't there for 62 years

[edit on 4/1/07 by madnessinmysoul]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join