Pledge of Allegiance BANNED!

Originally posted by eNumbra
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?

any one of these, your choice ... no you didn't say my words but the implication is quite clear.

Training children to mindlessly recite something without showing them the disconnect between the original intent
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm rejecting freedom by refusing to participate in an oath of loyalty, that soft brainwashes children?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
children shouldn't be pledging themselves to anything they haven't had the time or education to comprehend.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't understand that children don't have the ability to comprehend what they're pledging to and how it relates to the reality of what is?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is a very general and gross underestimate of children, which quite likely would be deemed offensive to those like the late "Miss Christina-Taylor Green" -- may she rest in peace.

We don't do the pledge as adults.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

speak for yourself and a very few others ... the masses recite it more often than you think.

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...

actually, what started this was your sole reference as Wiki, compounded by your opinion that it was and is a socialist plot of indoctrination. i offered an opposing opinion with additional and more substantial references and rather a thank you, you chose to argue about points truly irrelevant to the issue at hand. * It was Banned *

Originally posted by Annee
"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)?

i certainly don't need a lesson on Bellamy, thanks anyway.
your 2 sentence reply doesn't change the context of what i questioned.

when Bellamy wrote it, God wasn't referenced ... it was Added way later ...hence, It could be equally removed, not Ban the whole dang pledge.
I agreed with the first part of same statement, did you miss that?
*** or do you think because i agree with part, i Must agree with all?

Originally posted by stealthXninja

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...

If you use "plastic" credit or debit - - you avoid the paper money. But as you said - sort of - somethings are necessary evils.

Here's one case (there have been and are others): Atheist in battle to remove 'In God We Trust' from US currency

An atheist has claimed in court that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on US currency should be removed on the grounds they breach his constitutional rights as a non believer.
Michael Newdow looks down at the fax copy of the Supreme Court's ruling preserving the phrase 'one nation under God': Atheist in battle to remove 'In God We Trust' from US currency

The San Francisco-based 9th U S Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Michael Newdow, a doctor, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Honor93
i certainly don't need a lesson on Bellamy, thanks anyway.
your 2 sentence reply doesn't change the context of what i questioned.

Then stop interpreting and just read at face value.

reply to post by Annee


Great info, thank you! Also, I can't believe the thought of using a debit card never occurred to me...especially considering I always use mine and rarely have cash. It's amazing how easy you can miss little details when you're focused so much on one piece.

As far as my thoughts on the actual topic, i would have to lean toward the side of removing god from both...On the flipside of that though, it doesn't really offend me either; therefore, not really an issue to me... I think in general people get offended too easily. I think it has to do with the sue happy times we live in. That's probably a whole new topic though. I just feel like in the grand scheme of things, does it really effect you so much that it creates that big of an issue in your life it just seems there would be bigger things to worry about. I mean I know it's on the dollar but I never even think about it or read it for that matter. I pretty much forgot about it until reading this.

Just want to clarify that the part about it being an issue was not directed specifically to you annee. It was supposed to be general, but included it in my reply to you.

Originally posted by stealthXninja
. . . it doesn't really offend me either; therefore, not really an issue to me...

What is the issue for me is Religion in Government.

If many could have their way - - this would be a Christian ruled country.

They don't need ANY reason/excuse to continue to claim it already is. Like: "Do you see what it says on our money".

And Oh Yes! They do say that.

reply to post by Annee

i did, we discussed it, yet you just can't let it go ... obsessive much??

reply to post by Annee


Definitely a valid concern and I completely agree with you about separation of church and state. It doesn't really feel like a religiously run country to me though, especially with all of the corruption in government. The words on the money just feels more like something that's just sort of stuck around to me... Like I said, I agree that it should be removed, but it is just a lesser concern to me than say reforming the entire corrupt system. It just doesn't affect my life enough that I would put it on my list of priorities to change. Maybe it could go hand in hand with reforming the whole system.

According to some people it's must be done as well as other things to usher in the NWO and their Satanic agenda. It's like removing a protection spell on the US to make it more vunerable.

Originally posted by stealthXninja
reply to post by Annee

 

Definitely a valid concern and I completely agree with you about separation of church and state. It doesn't really feel like a religiously run country to me though, especially with all of the corruption in government. The words on the money just feels more like something that's just sort of stuck around to me... Like I said, I agree that it should be removed, but it is just a lesser concern to me than say reforming the entire corrupt system. It just doesn't affect my life enough that I would put it on my list of priorities to change. Maybe it could go hand in hand with reforming the whole system.

LOL - - well I've been hanging out in forums for 10+ years. So both God on the Money and the political Christian Right - - - are way too familiar to me.

As far as corruption "Man and Power" - - - then add Greed. I'm not sure the Corporate takeover can be stopped.

BUT - - "build it" - - "over throw it" - - seems to be a pattern in history. This time though - - I dunno. There simply is no place - - no open land to escape to.

You do know about the PNAC - don't you? www.newamericancentury.org...

Originally posted by Honor93

actually, what started this was your sole reference as Wiki, compounded by your opinion that it was and is a socialist plot of indoctrination. i offered an opposing opinion with additional and more substantial references and rather a thank you, you chose to argue about points truly irrelevant to the issue at hand. * It was Banned *

You replied to a post demanding proof it was an advertising jingle.

I posted a wiki article with 31 notes a 9 references in which, had you read through, you would have found all your information and more.

One of which is the same site, different article of one of the ones you posted. www.oldtimeislands.org...

My opinion of what it is(which wouldn't be socialist indoctrination anyway), is irrelevant to the fact that you'd rather scoff at the notion of lending anything wikipedia the slightest bit of credence while refusing to actually check the notes in the article. All the information is there in the notes; Wikipedia is a portal to all of the information. Don't get upset just because I didn't link you directly to each separate reference.

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by Honor93

actually, what started this was your sole reference as Wiki, compounded by your opinion that it was and is a socialist plot of indoctrination. i offered an opposing opinion with additional and more substantial references and rather a thank you, you chose to argue about points truly irrelevant to the issue at hand. * It was Banned *

You replied to a post demanding proof it was an advertising jingle.

I posted a wiki article with 31 notes a 9 references in which, had you read through, you would have found all your information and more.

One of which is the same site, different article of one of the ones you posted. www.oldtimeislands.org...

My opinion of what it is(which wouldn't be socialist indoctrination anyway), is irrelevant to the fact that you'd rather scoff at the notion of lending anything wikipedia the slightest bit of credence while refusing to actually check the notes in the article. All the information is there in the notes; Wikipedia is a portal to all of the information. Don't get upset just because I didn't link you directly to each separate reference.

edit on 1/9/2011 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

once more, i questioned that it was 'merely' an advertising jingle ... as you implied.
i learned this history loooooong before Wiki ever was ... no need to reference incomplete references.

your opinion is what i addressed at length, not Wiki ... i could really care less about Wiki ... your unending defense of it sure has me wondering other things though.
your reference (and your opinion of it) have nothing to do with the topic and your distractions aren't working. The Pledge should not be banned, it should be re-written and encouraged to all.

reply to post by Honor93


I gotta be honest, to bring up Christine Green to try and back your point is disgusting and bordering on evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

not a chance.
i honor her bravery to get involved. (especially at her age which another poster - to whom the response is addressed - vocally underestimates and then tried to justify it)

Christina was not young and dumb, but youthful and brave.
There is a difference and i also honor her parents for encouraging her.
yes, she is a victim of a (imho), senseless crime, but an honorable person all the same.
For any adult (self included) to continuously denounce the contributions, abilities and comprehension of the young ones only proves, over time, we've learned very little.

i honor her dignity to present herself willingly.
i honor her innocence and her sacrifice.
that you would surmise anything different, i find rather creepy.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

not a chance.
i honor her bravery to get involved. (especially at her age which another poster - to whom the response is addressed - vocally underestimates and then tried to justify it)

Christina was not young and dumb, but youthful and brave.
There is a difference and i also honor her parents for encouraging her.
yes, she is a victim of a (imho), senseless crime, but an honorable person all the same.
For any adult (self included) to continuously denounce the contributions, abilities and comprehension of the young ones only proves, over time, we've learned very little.

i honor her dignity to present herself willingly.
i honor her innocence and her sacrifice.
that you would surmise anything different, i find rather creepy.

You can find the fact that I find you invoking the name of a dead child to make a point sickening as creepy as you like. There is no reason for it to be brought into this conversation, you could have made your point without it, but you chose to play on emotion.

Again, sickening, and bordering on evil.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

you are welcome to your opinion, right or wrong and guess what? so am i.
now go away and find another bone to nibble ... some of us are still grieving

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

you are welcome to your opinion, right or wrong and guess what? so am i.
now go away and find another bone to nibble ... some of us are still grieving

It's not grief to use a dead childs name to further your agenda. Again, disgusting.



Carry on.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
It's not grief to use a dead child's name to further your agenda. Again, disgusting.

Carry on.

I agree - - it is disgusting and shocking.

Just letting you know you're not the only one who found it so.

EDIT: Let me add Creepy.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

you are welcome to your opinion, right or wrong and guess what? so am i.
now go away and find another bone to nibble ... some of us are still grieving

It's not grief to use a dead childs name to further your agenda. Again, disgusting.
Carry on.

i have no agenda but you sure seem to and if you don't back away, i will gladly report your personal attack ... there is no good reason for your persistent, abhorrent, rude and dismissive commentary. add to the TOPIC or go away, it is quite simple, really.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

you are welcome to your opinion, right or wrong and guess what? so am i.
now go away and find another bone to nibble ... some of us are still grieving

It's not grief to use a dead childs name to further your agenda. Again, disgusting.
Carry on.

i have no agenda but you sure seem to and if you don't back away, i will gladly report your personal attack ... there is no good reason for your persistent, abhorrent, rude and dismissive commentary. add to the TOPIC or go away, it is quite simple, really.

Please, report me. I couldnt care less.

You used a dead girl to make an exclamation on your point. That is using her to further your agenda, in the most basic sense of the word.

Fact is, you are using something that will draw an emotional response from the reader, as opposed to tackling the subject at hand.

Truthfully, I believe what you did could be considered outside the TOS of ATS.

And no, i wont go away, you dont get to make that call.