Any requirement to pledge allegiance to any institution is an indicator of fascism. You can pledge allegiance to another person (like in marriage), or to an idea (like liberty). If you pledge allegiance to an amorphous institution, though, you must relinquish your identity to some greater or lesser degree. The institution demands it. When the state demands allegiance that is fascism, pure and simple. The chain of allegiance goes flag---> republic---> god. Indivisibility refers to the states of that republic, but also implies indivisibility between the state and the citizen. Finally, the bargain is named - liberty and justice in return for allegiance to the chain of authority. But the terms are self-contradictory. You can't have liberty and justice when you have pledged allegiance (and obedience) to a state that sees its interests as paramount to yours.
Just curious ...how many of you actually believe that young, school-age children reciting a particular passage is actually making a valid pledge of allegiance to the nation? Think about it ...we're talking about five-to-ten year old kids here! How many of them even know what the hell the pledge of allegiance really means??? ...or care?? Baron Max
Frankly, I am getting tired of the whole onslaught against any reference of God in public. While I agree that God is a subjective issue, but just because that is so does not mean that once you are in public you have to change your personal view. It is so funny to read all the references to how saying "under God" in the pledge is fascist, dictatorial, forcing religion, and any other label most of you attach to it. But it is okay to eliminate the phrase altogether, and, of course, that has nothing to do with being fascist, dictatorial, forcing atheism, or any other label. It has to do with being logical!! Whatever! If you are that worried about one word in a phrase and are totally helpless to make your own decision about what to do about it, then maybe you should think about what it means to live in a free country. Some have stated they did not observe the pledge. Great, that is a choice they can make in a free society. Some may choose to stand, but not mouth the words. Again, great that is part of a free society. Pledging is more than words it is the way we live. Like it or not, this country when founded was so with an understanding of a supernatural being. The whole point was to have the freedom to worship, believe, or whatever one chooses to recognize their personal belief. Yes, the argument is valid that congress years ago forced this part of the pledge. Then write your congressman,woman and tell them that you want your state to vote on the pledge. Not only what it says, but whether or not it should be used. But then, why used the system when the abuse of judicial power has been so effective, right? Get a life people. Stop being so damn lazy in our free society, or there may not be a free society any longer.
A "my country right or wrong" mantra may have a fascist trace to it. But fascism is a little deeper than simply saying a pledge. And, this does not even address the idea that in a free society, we do not have to recognize the pledge. In a fascist society, you would be forced to say a pledge. You may argue coercion, but the truth is no one places a gun to another's head and demand they say the pledge.
I would like to point out the the original "Our country right or wrong..." is a quote from Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jr., USN, at a banquet toasting the capture of three British ships (the one he caught was the only one to actually be brought in, the other two being recaptured or in too bad a shape to make the journey home). The full original toast acknowledged that our foreign policies could be fallable (and by association our domestic policies, like assuring us that "Under God" doesn't really mean anything but squealing like stuck pigs when we try to take it out). It is also worth noting that Commodore Decatur had already had more than a few drinks in him when this toast was offered. Just a footnote to this whole thread, really doesn't mean anything. I'm going now. Breakfast is calling.
SImplify the issue. Have the kids say the pledge once a schoolyear. Give them the option of saying the christian one or a non religious one. Just like in court. You dont have to swear on a Bible. Personally Im not so bothered by the under god part even thought Im more buddhist minded, its the idea that they have to say it every day, as if they mightve rode the anarchists bus home the night before, or arrived at home to be welcomed by communists or terrorists with lots of candy. I think once a lifetime ought to be plenty. Everyday is insulting.. like we need to reaffirm where we stand with our country everyday. Bullshit. Forget the pledge. Let the kids use that time more wisely, say for group prayer.. or jacking off,.. or maybe getting started with the days lessons..
Ya' know, there's something dreadfully wrong in this nation when so much effort and money is spent on something like this miniscule issue when millions of citizens live in poverty and hunger, and lack any decent healthcare. Ya' know? Baron Max
Baron, are you baiting? What's wrong with a daily affirmation of the greatest civilization to ever grace God's earth. If these kids start their day with some sort of respect for the great opportunity they are blessed with, then maybe they will learn some responsibility to provide for themselves.
Cosmictraveler: "It is up to the parents to educate their offspring as to what they should do. " Unfortunately, the most influential person in a child's life is no longer a parent. Teachers are the authoritative adult they see the most of and most will not challenge they directions. Not an endorsement, just the way it is.
What fight? I just don't think the pledge does anything to or for kids, one way or the other. We've been saying the pledge for a gazillion years and it hasn't instilled any special respect, has it? In fact, quite the opposite. When I was going to school in the 50s, 60s, it seemed to me that everyone had respect .....but now?????? Baron Max
No one is asking anyone to change their personal views, simply allow the freedom to also have and express views OTHER than what is currently the most popular. The point of seperation of Church and State is to ALLOW pepole to worship any way they wish, including not at all. What if the majority of the people and the government supported Islam, Buddhism or Hindu? Would you want your children pledging their allegiance under Allah, Buddha or Krishna? Why is it the only ones I see complaining about this and using the rhetoric about a "freedom" to back it up are the ones whose freedom is not affected by it? NO ONE has complained about the use of God in public. How many people do you see going to the courts over religious displays on personal proerty or person? How many regarding religious displays at houses of worship? How many regarding preaching on the streets? How many complaining about people worshipping in the way they see fit? If you want to argue about what is happening, argue about what is happening. Of course it does not. Think about it for just a second, please. What is the difference between forcing a view on someone and not forcing a view on someone? Which of those is indicative of freedom? By not focing them to say it, they are NOT forcing them to say that God does not exist. It simply allows them to believe whatever it is they want to believe. It means you have the opportunity, right and even obligation to petition the government for what you think is fair and right. Perhaps YOU should think about what it means to live in a free country. Hint: It does not mean YOU are free to do whatever it is I agree with. Pledging is the way we live? What the Hell does that even mean? Which inherently implies the freedom to not worship at all. The purpose, in case you were not aware of it, of the Judicial branch, in part, is to decide if an enacted law is or is not Constitutional. Would you strip them of that power? How much respect do you really have for this "free society" and government if you would strip one of the three equal branches of one of its most important functions designed to keep the legislators in check? It is not abuse, it is using it for its explicitly intended purpose. Lazy? What the Hell does laziness have to do with ANY of this? You know what is lazy? Spouting meaningless platitudes without actually giving any critical thought to what you are saying and implying. Bullshit. As a child you are taught (or as it is supposed to go, anyway) to mind your teachers and behave yourself in school. The teachers do not say, "OK, class. Let's discuss the Pledge and what it means. THEN you can decide if you would lke to participate." They say, "All stand for the Pledge of Allegiance." And the children do as they are told. They fear that if they do not, they will be punished. I DID, in fact, refuse to stand in the third grade. When I tried to explain my reservations to the teacher, she sent me to the Principal's office. After a LONG discussion with him, we finally came to a compromise that I would stand silently when the class wopuld recite the Pledge, with my hands at my sides and a show of respect for them. Not to mention how many chikldren would fear being rejected and ridiculed for refusing to recite the Pledge, and for GOOD reason. I will conceed that it comes down to the parents teaching their children about their rights, but the fact of the matter is that the schools have a responsibility in that as well. Tell me... Let's say you has an 8 year-old child in public school. One day the kid comes home and tells you that the teacher tells the class to stand every morning and attest to the fact that there is no God. They recite a poem that talks about the farce of Christianity and makes the swear to disbelieve in God. Would you have a problem with that, or would you just chalk it up to "it's a free society" and "the kid doesn't have to recite if he doesn't want to"? You know what the only difference is? This aligns with your personal beliefs.
exactly. if "under god" was suddenly changed to "without god" there would be riots in the streets. we are not asking far that, we are just asking for no reference to god. I think it would be great if it didn't even mention a nation or a flag. how about pledging allegiance to liberty, justice, peace, fidelity, gratitude, beneficence, and self-improvement. I would stand for that one every time.
One thing I have to say FOR it... It is "one Nation"... A Nation, is a PEOPLE, not the government or even the country. I don't mind pledging allegiance to the unity of the People, regardless of the government. I think a lot of people do not recognize it. I do not, however, think: 1.) "Under God" should be there 2.) Children should be required (real or percieved) to recite it And I DO think that children should be taught exactly what it is about long before they are asked to memorize it.
