Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is interesting, I did not know that. I do know that was a very common salute for many nations though. And the swastika is a Hindu symbol of optimism. Crazy how things change.
They turned the swastika, and twisted the meaning...
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
People put too much emphasis on symbols. A flag is just a symbol and it can be interpreted different ways over different time periods. To some the flag of the United States represents freedom, democracy and opportuinity. To others it represents oppression, slavery and genocide. Both are correct in their own minds of their view of the flag. So trying to make people "pledge" to it is stupid. What if the south had made people "pledge" to the Confederate flag?
Here is your history lesson.
The pledge was indeed written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy in 1892 as part of a celebration dealing with the 40'th anniversary of Columbus discovering America.
Here is the original pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Under Benjamin Harrison the pledge was adopted for use in public schools. The original salute started with the hand over the heart and then it outstretched towards the flag. This lasted until WW2 when the outstretched hand became so closely associated with the Nazis.
The first change to the pledge came in 1923 when the National flag conference called for the addition of " to the flag of the United States" in place of "my flag"
In 1940, as a challenge to it being compulsory, the Jahovah's Witness' sought to not have to say the pledge as they felt it was a form of idolatry. Curious how the first challenge was from a religious one....
It was a push in the early 50's by the Knights of Columbus that the words "under God" were added.....they felt a reference to a diety was needed. Remember we needed to be identified separately from the "Godless" commies in the 50's. The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal order founded in 1882 in order to help their families. They are founded on the ideals of charity,Unity, Fraternity, and Patriotism. While they lead the charge to institute the change it did not happen until a minister ( that had Eisenhower in attendance ) called for the change as part of Lincoln day celebration. Under God was Lincolns expression from the Gettysburg Address.
There have been several challenges in court as to the constitutionality of forcing people to recite it, stating it affects their 1'st and 14'th rights. The first is freedom of speech and the 14'th is a post civil war amendment that limited the power of the states.
It seems many take great offense if anything is said towards the pledge, veterans often do as a result of feeling it insults a country they have served to protect. I suggest the country would be the important part of that equation. and as the country existed for over 100 years prior to the pledge It is a symbolic experience that may or may not reflect patriotism of an individual.
the challenges to this country do not come from those that want the option to recite a pledge but rather from those that restrict and eliminate the freedoms the country was based upon. If you think you have freedom here then you are not remembering a time when we had "due Process" or the ability to not have phones or email reviewed by the state. Oh these were rights lost in the last 8 years. Do not believe that someone that wraps themselves in a flag to present is a real patriot. Recall the senior officials did not serve in the military. And one actually used the National Guard to avoid serving in a war.... oh and then didnt even perform the duties in that realm.
Whichever pledge
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
or the less than original version 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.
the goal is to solidify a feeling of patriotism and respect for ideals held dear.
The point is we as a nation represent freedoms that had not been seen anywhere else. We are an evolution but we should stand up and reverse the damage that has been inflicted upon the rights of the citizens of this country.
For me you should have the right to not say the pledge, but I would hope you still have a sense of respect for the constitution and the Bill of rights. (There were only 10 originally). and a total of 27 presently.
I think the preamble states the goals and aspirations best....
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
People in this country are offended way too easily. So what if the pledge says "under God" or somebody wishes you a "Merry Christmas." If you are athiest and you don't believe anyways, why do you feel so threatened by such subtle things?
It doesn't have so much to do with being atheist at all, though atheists would certainly be among the affected groups. It has to do with universality. The Pledge is supposed to be one of the rituals of citizenship and rites of patriotism that we ALL share...simply as Americans. But adding "under God" makes it restrictive to those Americans who happen to favor some form of Christianity as their personal religion, that being the only religion that names its deity that and spells it that way. Thanks very much to those two clauses in the First Amendment, religion has prospered in this country as in no other developed country in the world. There are more than 400,000 places of worship in this country, established by nearly 1,500 different religions, sects, and denominations. We have lots of religion here, and many different forms of it. How is it that one subset from among all those can destroy the universality of the Pledge by claiming it for themselves alone. With the words included, tens of milions of Americans cannot offer an honest recitation of the Pledge, and many of those do resent having had that right and opportuntiy taken away from them.
It isn't really the time of year for it, but the Merry Christmas controversy cuts the other way. This is basically a matter of certain Christians objecting to any free American extending a seasonal greeting in any other way than the one that they approve. They have claimed that the use of any other greeting is in fact an "act of war" declared against their own religion. It is another example of these particular Christians claiming a special status of superiority and exclusivity. They are simply saying "This belongs to us and to us alone" when again, tens of millions of Americans celebrate either a different holiday from Christmas or merely celebrate the season itself.
In each case, it isn't at all that others feel threatened. They may unavoidably feel excluded, but it is still not the particular words involved in these debates that people find most objectionable. It is the attitude behind the acts...the underlying concept that some are made so special and superior in this world by their faith in a particular deity that this special and superior status must be codified in our civil law and then flaunted in the face of others in the conduct of our daily public lives. Not only are these particular acts disrespectful of the views and violative of the rights of other Americans, but the sort of self-righteous hubris that is inherent in them is really not very Christian-like at all...
It doesn't have so much to do with being atheist at all, though atheists would certainly be among the affected groups. It has to do with universality. The Pledge is supposed to be one of the rituals of citizenship and rites of patriotism that we ALL share...simply as Americans. But adding "under God" makes it restrictive to those Americans who happen to favor some form of Christianity as their personal religion, that being the only religion that names its deity that and spells it that way. Thanks very much to those two clauses in the First Amendment, religion has prospered in this country as in no other developed country in the world. There are more than 400,000 places of worship in this country, established by nearly 1,500 different religions, sects, and denominations. We have lots of religion here, and many different forms of it. How is it that one subset from among all those can destroy the universality of the Pledge by claiming it for themselves alone. With the words included, tens of milions of Americans cannot offer an honest recitation of the Pledge, and many of those do resent having had that right and opportuntiy taken away from them.
It isn't really the time of year for it, but the Merry Christmas controversy cuts the other way. This is basically a matter of certain Christians objecting to any free American extending a seasonal greeting in any other way than the one that they approve. They have claimed that the use of any other greeting is in fact an "act of war" declared against their own religion. It is another example of these particular Christians claiming a special status of superiority and exclusivity. They are simply saying "This belongs to us and to us alone" when again, tens of millions of Americans celebrate either a different holiday from Christmas or merely celebrate the season itself.
In each case, it isn't at all that others feel threatened. They may unavoidably feel excluded, but it is still not the particular words involved in these debates that people find most objectionable. It is the attitude behind the acts...the underlying concept that some are made so special and superior in this world by their faith in a particular deity that this special and superior status must be codified in our civil law and then flaunted in the face of others in the conduct of our daily public lives. Not only are these particular acts disrespectful of the views and violative of the rights of other Americans, but the sort of self-righteous hubris that is inherent in them is really not very Christian-like at all...
Under God could be universal to all monotheists, not just Christians. But again, not compulsory, don't say it. Kids in school say all kinds of things, you are in a group, you make up words, silly sayings, it is not a serious issue except for a few puffed chest people who think it is. Say it, don't say it. NO one has a gun to anyone's head. If you choose to say it because you are trying to show people how patriotic you are even when you may not be and it works, good for you and shame on them for thinking that saying a school child recitation is a test of patriotism.
guess i dont get the offending thing. it is not illegal to be offensive, just boorish. I do not know why this is an issue, be growups and don't say it. If your kid wants to say it let them, if they don't tell them not to. It is really that easy. As a kid, I had to learn English poetry about the great British Empire, while relatives were living under siege in the 6 provinces, I was annoyed, but it did not alter my life because I am an american, free to do it or not.
Under God could be universal to all monotheists, not just Christians. But again, not compulsory, don't say it. Kids in school say all kinds of things, you are in a group, you make up words, silly sayings, it is not a serious issue except for a few puffed chest people who think it is. Say it, don't say it. NO one has a gun to anyone's head. If you choose to say it because you are trying to show people how patriotic you are even when you may not be and it works, good for you and shame on them for thinking that saying a school child recitation is a test of patriotism.
No, GOD as such is the deity only of Christianity. Meanwhile, the tort in its ethical sense lies in the previously noted aggrandizement and elevation of themselves and their "special" beliefs by certain Christians. In the legal sense, it has to do with the actions of the government in light of its obligation to neutrality in matters of religion, first in having established the 1954 wording at all, and second in having made recitation of that wording mandatory upon school children. These certain Christians tred where they do not belong in beseeching the government to bestow special favors upon them, and the government treds where it does not belong both in acceding to those wishes and in then enforcing the effects of them upon others.
If it isn't a "serious issue", why would anyone care if the words were taken out? No biggie, right? Just do it...
If it isn't a "serious issue", why would anyone care if the words were taken out? No biggie, right? Just do it...
PC run amuck is all it is. If you are offended by what I day - tough. Deal with it and move on
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
