Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pre-1950s Pledge of Allegiance

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.


You unwillingly make my point in your own comments. You state that people should recite the pledge as their conscience dictates and then dismiss the congressman as being not credible simply because he makes the choice to do so in its pure form. Where is the respect for the congressman and where is the respect for the author of the pledge?




posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

You unwillingly make my point in your own comments. You state that people should recite the pledge as their conscience dictates and then dismiss the congressman as being not credible simply because he makes the choice to do so in its pure form. Where is the respect for the congressman and where is the respect for the author of the pledge?


Yes, technically the congressman is reciting the pledge in it's pure form. Why he is doing that, neither of us can know. It could be the reason you put forth, it could be my interpretation, it could be something entirely different than either reason.

I did not dismiss his credibility because of his choice. I did so because of his words and actions.

Why do we owe any respect to the author of the pledge?

Is it OK with you if someone decides to say the pledge with the words "under God" in it? Or do you have a problem with that?




posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
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.



From this source

Pledge

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892.

Also from the source:

In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.




posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Here's another one for ya...The regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957.

As for the pledge of allegiance, the original version was,
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It became, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." sometime between 1924 & 1954. Then in '54 McCarthyism inspired Congress to pass an amendment adding "under God" to the pledge.

Notice that in the original version the pledge read my Flag not the flag of the United States of America. We no longer pledge allegiance to a flag which represents us, as individuals. We now are taught to pledge allegiance to a flag belonging to the United States of America. The difference may seem insignificant, but when you realize that the United States of America is a corporation now, not a country belonging to it's people, it makes a world of difference.

While I do think that some people are going too far and are now trying to get rid of any mention of God anywhere; I do not think that the phrase "under God" belongs on our currency or in our pledge. It was not written that way and there was no reason, other than manipulation of the public, to change it. There is no reason why people who wish to say it shouldn't say it, but it is wrong to force people to do so who disagree with the statement. If it were still in it's original form, then they might have an argument, based on preserving its historical context and significance to America, but its not. They need to return it to its original wording, as the author intended it to be.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

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.



We don't agree in other areas John, but I totally agree with you there. However, Bleys brought up the point thet 'under-God' wasn't always in the Pledge. I think we are just going to have to accept the inevitable change. And about those public fixtures of religion being removed, San Diego has a few crosses on hill tops. Guess who is involved in trying to get rid of them? The ACLU perhaps? The ACLU ... don't even get me started.

[Edited on 4-30-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Ah yes, the ACLU. One of my least favorite 4 letter words. They were involved out there last year, LA or San Diego, where they managed to get the Boy Scouts out of a city park. Great use of our judicial system.


That's the beauty of the design of our system, tho. Everyone has the right to be represented, even though they might walk out of the courthouse and spit in the eyes of those who work to preserve those very rights.




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   
The ACLU, what a corrupt organization. The case they took regarding NAMBLA, makes me sick.

I do however agree that "under god" should be taken out of the pledge. It isn't right to the kids who do not believe in God, to have to say it in the pledge. Why were they put in there in the first place?



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Thay...defended NAMBLA?! I thought NAMBLA was a joke when I first heard about it on Mr. Show...



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Thay...defended NAMBLA?! I thought NAMBLA was a joke when I first heard about it on Mr. Show...


I was surprised too when I first heard. Check these links out:

www.operationlookout.org...

www.aclu.org...

Anyway, in ref. to the ACLU, they are pretty corrupt, they make money off these cases by taking suits to judges they know will give them leeway.

Which is why I am leary when they get involved in cases such as this(the pledge of allegence), even though they tend to win.

www.aclu.org...



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
So they defend the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) but they condemn christianity by removing any monument which reflects the religion. WTF is happening to our country...



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The thing wrong with the pathetic attempt at defenders of human rights, aka the ACLU, is, that instead of defending EVERY group (which is what a group like that is supposed to do), they defend ONLY the minority groups. So we white Christian males are kind of at a disadvantage. Instead of making it truly equal for ALL ethnicities, religions, sexes, etc, they condem the white Christian males, and promote the minority groups' beliefs. In other words, they are giving us a taste of our (white Christian males) own medicine, stooping down to the level of SOME of our forefathers - remind me, how is that a good thing? How is it NOT contradictory or hypocritical? Oh, thats right, IT IS THE EPITOME OF CONTRADICTION AND HYPOCRICY. This is probably very dangerous to say, but if a terrorist group attacked their HQ, would I care? NO. All they are doing is making the division in this country worse, and keeping racism, sexism, etc alive. Would that make them a non-violent terrorist organization
?

Case in point: Screw the ACLU and its defenders. Use the brains GOD (oopsie!
) gave you and realize your organization is a piece of contradictory liberal trash.

I hope Colonel comes into this discussion, hes a pretty outspoken guy and it would be interesting to see the other side's point of view.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is that when people pledge allegiance to their country, it should be to their country. If you want to pledge allegiance to God or whoever, do it another time. If I want to pledge my allegiance to the country I will do that.

You cannot make me pledge allegiance to my country only on the condition that the country is "under God" when I may not believe God exists.

Religion NEVER needs to be public. It is that simple. Religion is a highly personal thing for some people and there is no reason that it needs to be in courts, schools, or in places that are supposed to respect a wide range of beliefs.



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.


Agreed. The problem is, however, those 2 words are required by law. If you don't say them, you are breaking the law.



[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
But you see, they ARE pledging allegiance to a country - a country that happens to be 'under God'. Yes, it's illegal to not say 'under God', so why not make it illegal to not say the whole thing? And, I've ALWAYS wondered this, why that just becasue you say 'under God', it means you suddenly believe in him? The only reason you are saying it is becase its the LAW of the country. Say it was Allah in this country; I don't believe in him but I would still say it anyway becasue it is the law. The people raising the issue of "boo hoo, I have to say God!" are just looking to stir up trouble and get their fifteen minutes of fame.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Look Xeno, as a kid I lived in SC for a few years. It sucked, I am not christian and was forced to sing christian songs in school and made to feel by my peers that because I wasn't christian that I was less than everyone else. And for someone to say that I had the choice to not participate is not the case, as a child the teacher is the authority. There is no place for religion in school, the courts or any other organization that governs me or my child. I am personally glad that "under god" is a case in the Supreme court and that religious songs are deemed inapprops in school. The beauty in this country is the Constitution, as not to allow "mob" rule. I understand that you as a christian male would like to freely express yourself, but not at the expense of others in the community that are not christian or even male. What I mean is celebrate in your church community, with your family, etc... not in public places where this country has so much diversity. I do however agree with you on the ACLU and thier choice in plaintiffs. NAMBALA, urrghhh.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

BUt you see, they ARE pledging allegiance to a country. A country that happens to be 'under God'. Yes it's illegal to not say 'under God'


Says who? Prove to me that our country is really "under God." When I say the pledge I am pledging "allegiance to the republic for which it stands one nation under god." Basically I am pledging allegiance to the nation with the condition and belief that it is under God. The problem is, I do not believe it is under God. I do not believe in a God, so why should I be forced, by law to include something in my pledge that I do not believe?


so why not make it illegal to not say the whole thing? And, I've ALWAYS wondered this, why that just becasue you say 'under God', it means you suddenly believe in him? The only reason you are saying it is becase its the LAW of the country. Say it was Allah in this country; I don't believe in him but I would still say it anyway becasue it is the law. The people raising the issue of "boo hoo, I have to say God!" are just looking to stir up trouble and get their fifteen minutes of fame.


It shouldn't be the law though. If it was up to me, there would be no mention of God in any law in the entire nation. You cannot force me, by law, to say something or do something that has any religious grounds. I feel that my non-belief is being infringed upon by being forced to say our nation is under God.

How would you feel if the words "under God" were changed to "under Satan?" Or "under the Greys?"

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Forced to sing christian songs in school? Public or private? If it was public, than that's a bad thing. If it was private, why didn't you tell your parents that you didn't believe in God? We're you at too young of an age? How did it make you feel inferior to the other kids there?

It shouldn't be the law but it is; you can either accept that, or start a petition - there are more than enough people with the same mindset as you.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
"Forced to sing christian songs in school? Public or private?"

Public

"If it was private, why didn't you tell your parents that you didn't believe in God? "

I said I wasn't christian, not a non believer in god. What I find interesting is that most christians I tell that I am not christian, automatically assume I do not believe in god, I happen to be buddhist.

"We're you at too young of an age?"

6-10yrs old

"How did it make you feel inferior to the other kids there?"

Not inferior, just excluded in certain respects.

"It shouldn't be the law but it is; you can either accept that, or start a petition - there are more than enough people with the same mindset as you. "

What are you talking about?

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]


[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Narnia]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

It shouldn't be the law but it is; you can either accept that, or start a petition - there are more than enough people with the same mindset as you.


It is already in court, bud. Get with the times.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
McDermott's actions probably won't have much impact one way or another -- and for the record, I remember having to RELEARN the pledge when the anti-Communists all insisted we had to declare faith to prove we weren't godless pinko commies.

It took awhile to relearn it because the other form was habit.

For the record, I don't think anyone cares if you say it and omit "under God" (I have for many years) or say "under Allah" (if you don't make a point of standing up and screaming it out to be confrontational) or "under Jesus Christ our Savior" or under whatever you like as long as you don't act like a fruitcake about it.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
@Narnia
OK, since you want to get technical, why didn't you tell your parents you didn't believe in what they wanted you to believe? Also, I was talking to you and Cutwolf in the same thread. Sorry for the confusion.

@Cutwolf
Ok, you're right. Hopefully you have done your part to help the cause instead of just talking about what should be done.

@Byrd
Interesting point. They just rule that one is allowed to say anything instead of making 'under God' illegal. That way, everybody will be happy; you can say whatever you want or nothing at all.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join