Pre-1950s Pledge of Allegiance

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I said this before and I'll say it again, why not just make it so that you can say anything you want or nothing at all? This would make everybody happy! One of the limitless possibilities: ... one nation, under french fry ...

*Nyuk nyuk nyuk*

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]




posted on May, 3 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
I said this before and I'll say it again, why not just make it so that you can say anything you want or nothing at all? This would mae everybody happy! One of the limitless possibilities: ... one nation, under french fry ...

*Nyuk nyuk nyuk*

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]


I'd go with that, it would make for a unique patronage and at the same time promote individuality.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
I said this before and I'll say it again, why not just make it so that you can say anything you want or nothing at all? This would make everybody happy! One of the limitless possibilities: ... one nation, under french fry ...

*Nyuk nyuk nyuk*

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]

Why must we be one nation "under" anything or anyone? Why don't we feel adequate enough to stand on our own, as "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? The author of the pledge certainly thought it possible.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel

Originally posted by xenophanes85
I said this before and I'll say it again, why not just make it so that you can say anything you want or nothing at all? This would make everybody happy! One of the limitless possibilities: ... one nation, under french fry ...

*Nyuk nyuk nyuk*

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]

Why must we be one nation "under" anything or anyone? Why don't we feel adequate enough to stand on our own, as "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? The author of the pledge certainly thought it possible.


xeno, you did mean freedom fries, didn't you?
But you have the best, simplest solution proposed so far, but don't feel too complacent, it'll be challenged soon enuf.


As a matter of fact, jezebel has a point. Why must we be one nation under anything? Matter of fact, jezebel, there's a thread going on somewhere in here wanting to tear the nation apart. Maybe the smart thing to do is to wait till that's done, the dust settles, and they can have their "freeedom" and the pledge the way they want it.




posted on May, 3 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I think some people, who think it shouldn't matter whether or not the Pledge includes the phrase "under God", do not realize what it means to make a pledge.

A pledge is an oath or a vow. When someone makes a pledge, they are making "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words". In pledging their allegiance they are, in essence, promising their loyalty to someone/something, and they are declaring that their pledge is 100% true. If "under God" is included in that pledge, then those saying it are declaring their belief in a nation under God. Consequently, those who don't believe in God, or a nation under God, were and are required to lie whenever they make that pledge.

The original version of the Pledge of Allegiance 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.

There is another aspect of the Pledge, which few are familiar with. 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 belongs to 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 legitimate need to change it.

There is no reason why people who wish to say it shouldn't say it, but it is wrong to expect people to do so who disagree with the statement. If it were included in the Pledge's original form, then they might have an argument, based on preserving its historical context and significance to America, but it's not. They need to return it to its original wording, as the author intended it to be.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I have one question, who was it who said that leaving out the Under God would be forcing athiesm on people? I don't get how that's forcing anything on them, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Why is seperation of church and state a good idea? Remember learning about the middle ages?



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It's not necessarily forcing his religion (or lack of religion in his case) on people, it's forcing his idea on people of what he thinks the Pledge should be. Still hypocritical.

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
It's not necessarily forcing his religion (or lack of religion in his case) on people, it's forcing his idea on people of what he thinks the Pledge should be. Still hypocritical.

[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]


Just wanted to clear up a misconception held by many people, and put forth earlier in this thread. It doesn't seem like the author was anti-religion at all. See here:

Pledge

Interesting viewpoint there of what the pledge might evolve into:


If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'


Please...let 'Take Me Out To The Ballgame' alone. Please?




posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Just wanted to clear up a misconception held by many people, and put forth earlier in this thread. It doesn't seem like the author was anti-religion at all. See here:

Pledge

He may not have been anti-religion, but he did have his reasons for not including religion in the Pledge.

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge...
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.


Of the two possible changes mentioned below, the second option wouldn't be a modification, but a restoration, to what the author originally intended.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]




If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebelHe may not have been anti-religion, but he did have his reasons for not including religion in the Pledge.

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge...
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.


Of the two possible changes mentioned below, the second option wouldn't be a modification, but a restoration, to what the author originally intended.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]



Jezebel-
I appreciate your insight into this. I have learned a great deal from your knowledge on this subject. I am also pleasantly surprised that Bellamy was such a progressive for his time. I think it has been a disservice to his memory that the pledge has been politicized and bastardized over the last century.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
So, are we all in agreement that the motion in Court should be ruled to make the Pledge's 'under God' line 'all or nothing'?

[Edited on 5/3/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
So, are we all in agreement that the motion in Court should be ruled to make the Pledge's 'under God' line 'all or nothing'?

[Edited on 5/3/04 by xenophanes85]


I don't know...I'd feel like I was bowing to political correctness once again. There's no reason that we have to take the pledge as it was origianlly written...hell, what does "my flag" mean anyway? Am I supposed to have my own flag? Where's the flag catalog so I can make my choice? Can I sew my own flag?

Today's flag looks nothing like the original one that Betsy sewed. Why does the pledge have to be the same?

Hell, even the Constitution has been amended.

No, xeno, I like your original idea about "french fries". I shall recuse myself from the vote in protest.




posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The pledge should be recited as it was originally intended to be recited. Adding "under God" and requiring it by law is a clear government promotion of religion. That, my friends, violates the 1st Amendment.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I don't think 'under god' should be in the pledge, and I like the idea of the words 'my flag'. It is your idea of America, because in America everybody is not only allowed their own ideas and opinions they are encouraged (or should be) to have them. Maybe it would bring back some of the morals and honor people have lost over the years. I like the idea of pledging to an idea (the idea of america) and not a country, because otherwise we are no different than Hitler's Germany. We would just follow the leader, and we cannot allow our country to become anymore like that than it already is. (partisan politics) In addition, I believe the words 'my flag' could very well take the place of 'under god'. It would show that you are still allowed your beliefs because it is your flag, so it can stand for whatever you want.

The words 'under god' would be forcing the belief that there is a god on people, and it should not be illegal to say it a different way. People can still say it, but it makes no sense to assume that we as a country are doing the work of god. (which is basically what it means)

That also gives good reason to take the words 'Annuit Coeptis' and 'under god' off the dollar bill. Our government is not an institution of religion, and therefore the only logical way to have equality for everyone is to remove any connection between the two. That doesn't mean that they'd be saying there is no god, it means they would not be saying that there is, in fact they wouldn't even mention the subject. I also like the idea of including the word equality in the pledge, because I do believe we are all equal and deserve all the same rights and privliges.

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

Please tell me how this pledge could be unfair to anyone.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
The pledge should be recited as it was originally intended to be recited. Adding "under God" and requiring it by law is a clear government promotion of religion. That, my friends, violates the 1st Amendment.


Again, that doesn't violate the 1st Amendment as no denomination is held as the official denomination. The first amendment was not intended to prevent the recognition of God. The assertion that recognition of God is prohibited by the constitution is not only incorrect, but is pushed for reasons of agenda. Learn the history of our nation's origins and learn the truth.




new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join