one nation, under god

[Dot Com]

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You hit the nail on the head my friend. The country did pretty darn well up until the mid-1950's, during the Red Scare, when it was decided that Orwellian psyops would help during the Cold War. Well, the cold War is over & we can think for ourselves again.

So are you suggesting that all of those 90+% of Americans who like the Pledge the way it is are not capable of thinking for themselves? Can you accept that they think the Pledge is just fine the way it is now and they LIKE reciting it? They LIKE showing respect to the flag. They LIKE hearing or singing the National Anthem.

How do any of these things take away any of your ability to think for yourself?

What was wrong w/ it prior to 1954? Were people dumber prior to that I'm an honorably-discharged, former active-duty vet who has a sufficient amt. of patriotic capital and I think the pledge was fine for @ 165 years It was inclusive. Now its exclusive. I'm finished w/ you. How many days you been on the losing side of the argument now?

 

[Foxfyre]

You hit the nail on the head my friend. The country did pretty darn well up until the mid-1950's, during the Red Scare, when it was decided that Orwellian psyops would help during the Cold War. Well, the cold War is over & we can think for ourselves again.

So are you suggesting that all of those 90+% of Americans who like the Pledge the way it is are not capable of thinking for themselves? Can you accept that they think the Pledge is just fine the way it is now and they LIKE reciting it? They LIKE showing respect to the flag. They LIKE hearing or singing the National Anthem.

How do any of these things take away any of your ability to think for yourself?

What was wrong w/ it prior to 1954? Were people dumber prior to that I'm an honorably-discharged, former active-duty vet who has a sufficient amt. of patriotic capital and I think the pledge was fine for @ 165 years It was inclusive. Now its exclusive. I'm finished w/ you. How many days you been on the losing side of the argument now?

Thank you for your service.

There was nothing wrong with it prior to 1954.

There is nothing wrong with it now.

I don't think I have been losing any part of this argument. So far nobody has come up with anything to demonstrate that I am wrong in my point of view. I am happy to hear that you're giving up though.

(At least I know my history. The Pledge existed without the prhase 'under God' for about 62 years and has included the phrase 'under God' for about 58 years now. I don't know a single soul who has been harmed, coerced, changed, disadvantaged, or traumatized by learning, reciting, or hearing the Pledge either way.)

 

[Dot Com]

So are you suggesting that all of those 90+% of Americans who like the Pledge the way it is are not capable of thinking for themselves? Can you accept that they think the Pledge is just fine the way it is now and they LIKE reciting it? They LIKE showing respect to the flag. They LIKE hearing or singing the National Anthem.

How do any of these things take away any of your ability to think for yourself?

What was wrong w/ it prior to 1954? Were people dumber prior to that I'm an honorably-discharged, former active-duty vet who has a sufficient amt. of patriotic capital and I think the pledge was fine for @ 165 years It was inclusive. Now its exclusive. I'm finished w/ you. How many days you been on the losing side of the argument now?

Thank you for your service.

There was nothing wrong with it prior to 1954.

There is nothing wrong with it now.

I don't think I have been losing any part of this argument. So far nobody has come up with anything to demonstrate that I am wrong in my point of view. I am happy to hear that you're giving up though.

(At least I know my history. The Pledge existed without the prhase 'under God' for about 62 years and has included the phrase 'under God' for about 58 years now. I don't know a single soul who has been harmed, coerced, changed, disadvantaged, or traumatized by learning, reciting, or hearing the Pledge either way.)

So the relevance of the applicability of a phrase, inserted during the Red Scare, should be based on the experiences of people you have met? Do you ask everyone you encounter?

 

[Foxfyre]

What was wrong w/ it prior to 1954? Were people dumber prior to that I'm an honorably-discharged, former active-duty vet who has a sufficient amt. of patriotic capital and I think the pledge was fine for @ 165 years It was inclusive. Now its exclusive. I'm finished w/ you. How many days you been on the losing side of the argument now?

Thank you for your service.

There was nothing wrong with it prior to 1954.

There is nothing wrong with it now.

I don't think I have been losing any part of this argument. So far nobody has come up with anything to demonstrate that I am wrong in my point of view. I am happy to hear that you're giving up though.

(At least I know my history. The Pledge existed without the prhase 'under God' for about 62 years and has included the phrase 'under God' for about 58 years now. I don't know a single soul who has been harmed, coerced, changed, disadvantaged, or traumatized by learning, reciting, or hearing the Pledge either way.)

So the relevance of the applicability of a phrase, inserted during the Red Scare, should be based on the experiences of people you have met? Do you ask everyone you encounter?

No, the propriety and applicability of a phrase should be based on evidence that it is pleasing to most Americans and harmful to none. I have already posted sufficient evidence of the "most Americans' part, and nobody has yet provided any evidence of any harm it has done to anybody. And if you bring up the argument that some kids have been embarrassed or ostracized for not showing proper respect for the Pledge, I will point out that some kids have been embarrassed or ostracized for having gay parents or for not liking a particular sports team or figure or any number of things. I am fairly certain that you would not blame the gay parents or the sports team or any of those other things for the experience of those kids, and neither should the Pledge be blamed for inappropriate behavior of any kind.

In the interest of historical accuracy, the Pledge has been around for a long time, but we have had an official--that is Congressionally sanctioned--Pledge only since 1942. I believe the vote to sanction it was unanimous.

The "Red Scare" had far less to do with the insertion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge than did the lobbying efforts of the Knights of Columbus who wanted the historical concept of unalienable rights acknowledged. The phrase was sanctioned, I believe also unanimously, by the U.S. Congress and signed off on by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Knights of Columbus was the leading proponent of the 1954 addition of the
words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1952, the Supreme Council
adopted a resolution that urged Congress and the White House to add the words
"under God" to the Pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance was formally amended by Congress and signed into law
by President Dwight Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. In a letter
following the action, President Eisenhower thanked the K of C for its work in
making the addition of the words "under God," to the Pledge a reality.

Today the Order is directly involved in defending the Pledge against the most
recent legal challenge to its constitutionality.

"It is important to understand that as citizens of this nation, we derive our
rights from our Creator. It is this principle which has made America the great
and free land that it is, and it is this principle, which the Knights of
Columbus is so honored to defend," said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson.
Knights of Columbus Defend Words 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance | Reuters

Then in 2002. . . .

. . . .By a vote of 401-5, the House of Representatives on Oct. 8, 2002 completed Congressional approval of a bill reaffirming the reference to "one Nation under God" as an official part of the Pledge of Allegiance. . . .

. . . . The bill, passed 99-0 by the Senate in June, reaffirms the effect of a 1954 act of Congress which originally inserted the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.
The bill formalizes congressional recognition of the official wording of the Pledge of Allegiance as being:
"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." . . .
Congress Confirms God in Pledge of Allegiance, National Motto

You don’t get any more bipartisan than that this day and age.

 

[Dot Com]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

 

[Liability]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

I'm the opposite of you. I AM religious , somewhat anyway, but it doesn't bother me that others are not.

Must be something about respecting the first amendment rights of EVERYONE not just those we agree with.

 

[Dot Com]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

It doesn't bother me either but now it appears the catch-phrase has become req'd as an ending to all Presidential speeches or people will howl in the blogosphere about it. I don't like group-think.

I believe Nixon was the one to start saying it at the end of every speech. Nixon would be considered a moderate in today's climate given he was for universal HC among other things. If it wasn't for the rampant paranoia on both sides of the aisle during that time & the resulting dirty-tricks, he would be judged differently.

 

[Foxfyre]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

I think Congress and Presidents should be spending their time and focusing on a lot of things other than what they sometimes do, but I can think of a lot worse things that our government can be engaged in than promoting national pride, unity, and recognition of our unique culture and exceptionalism.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

It doesn't bother me either but now it appears the catch-phrase has become req'd as an ending to all Presidential speeches or people will howl in the blogosphere about it. I don't like group-think.

I believe Nixon was the one to start saying it at the end of every speech. Nixon would be considered a moderate in today's climate given he was for universal HC among other things. If it wasn't for the rampant paranoia on both sides of the aisle during that time & the resulting dirty-tricks, he would be judged differently.

I do have to admit that I would find it unsettling if Obama , or any US politician , screamed Allahu Akbar at the end of a speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

It doesn't bother me either but now it appears the catch-phrase has become req'd as an ending to all Presidential speeches or people will howl in the blogosphere about it. I don't like group-think.

I believe Nixon was the one to start saying it at the end of every speech. Nixon would be considered a moderate in today's climate given he was for universal HC among other things. If it wasn't for the rampant paranoia on both sides of the aisle during that time & the resulting dirty-tricks, he would be judged differently.

Actually it was during the Watergate scandal that Nixon, in a speech, asked for the prayers of the American people to guide him and, for the first time, ended his speech with God bless you and God bless America.

Neither Ford nor Carter followed suit so it was not a custom widely done before or after that particular speech.

Reagan DID end his speeches that way followed by George HW Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now and then Obama.

From George Washington on, however, U.S. Presidents have typically acknowledged God and providential guidance and direction in their speeches; a custom that has been significantly tempered down in more modern times.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God...... Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty...... With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Inaugural Address - Friday, January 20, 1961- John F. Kennedy

 

[Dot Com]

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

It doesn't bother me either but now it appears the catch-phrase has become req'd as an ending to all Presidential speeches or people will howl in the blogosphere about it. I don't like group-think.

I believe Nixon was the one to start saying it at the end of every speech. Nixon would be considered a moderate in today's climate given he was for universal HC among other things. If it wasn't for the rampant paranoia on both sides of the aisle during that time & the resulting dirty-tricks, he would be judged differently.

I do have to admit that I would find it unsettling if Obama , or any US politician , screamed Allahu Akbar at the end of a speech.

Why add any ref to any deity by a public official. Reminds me of Tebow. If there were a god, he/she would favor the planet, not some transitory country on the blip of the timeline of the universe.

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't bother me either but now it appears the catch-phrase has become req'd as an ending to all Presidential speeches or people will howl in the blogosphere about it. I don't like group-think.

I believe Nixon was the one to start saying it at the end of every speech. Nixon would be considered a moderate in today's climate given he was for universal HC among other things. If it wasn't for the rampant paranoia on both sides of the aisle during that time & the resulting dirty-tricks, he would be judged differently.

I do have to admit that I would find it unsettling if Obama , or any US politician , screamed Allahu Akbar at the end of a speech.

Why add any ref to any deity by a public official. Reminds me of Tebow. If there were a god, he/she would favor the planet, not some transitory country on the blip of the timeline of the universe.

But why would anyone deny a public official or a Tim Tebow or anybody else their unalienable right to profess their faith in a God or anything else if they are inspired or as a matter of concience compelled to express it? How does that infringe on anybody else's rights? Tolerance works both ways. You have the right to pooh pooh, if you choose to do so, the idea of God's intervention or help with anything. But others have the right to believe that He is and He does.

 

[Dot Com]

I do have to admit that I would find it unsettling if Obama , or any US politician , screamed Allahu Akbar at the end of a speech.

Why add any ref to any deity by a public official. Reminds me of Tebow. If there were a god, he/she would favor the planet, not some transitory country on the blip of the timeline of the universe.

But why would anyone deny a public official or a Tim Tebow or anybody else their unalienable right to profess their faith in a God or anything else if they are inspired or as a matter of concience compelled to express it? How does that infringe on anybody else's rights? Tolerance works both ways. You have the right to pooh pooh, if you choose to do so, the idea of God's intervention or help with anything. But others have the right to believe that He is and He does.

So its a "He"? Are you an adherent to any particular religion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why add any ref to any deity by a public official. Reminds me of Tebow. If there were a god, he/she would favor the planet, not some transitory country on the blip of the timeline of the universe.

But why would anyone deny a public official or a Tim Tebow or anybody else their unalienable right to profess their faith in a God or anything else if they are inspired or as a matter of concience compelled to express it? How does that infringe on anybody else's rights? Tolerance works both ways. You have the right to pooh pooh, if you choose to do so, the idea of God's intervention or help with anything. But others have the right to believe that He is and He does.

So its a "He"? Are you an adherent to any particular religion?

"He" is the traditional pronoun that those of the JudeoChristian faith use for the "Father God" of the Old and New Testaments. But intellectually, God is spirit and therefore unencumbered by gender.

And I am a Christian with allegiance to no particular denomination. I was rasied Methodist, have attended, worked with, and worshipped with Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and other, and was an active member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) most of my adult life, mostly because of the intellectual freedom that particular group afforded me, and I am currently an active member of a non denominational congregation.

Does it matter?

 

[Ravi]

I can't help but think that all these uber-patriots are one step away from being nationalistic fucktards, akin to the Nazis, that want to define what an American should be.

The founders must be rolling in their graves.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I can't help but think that all these uber-patriots are one step away from being nationalistic fucktards, akin to the Nazis, that want to define what an American should be.
The founders must be rolling in their graves.

^^this^^

 

[Liability]

Its a third-rail issue that many Reps are unwilling to be candid about given there are more pressing issues. Pete Stark is the exception. BTW- do you know who was the first President to regularly start ending his speeches w/ "god bless America"? It turns my stomach when they do that. Same thing w/ the lapel pin non-issue/nonsense.

If a President happens to be a believer, I am not in the slightest bit put-off when they invoke the blessings of God.

If the President happens to be a person with no actual morality and/or apparently no religious convictions, either, then invoking that phrase is kind of nauseating.

I am not particularly religious, but cannot imagine why I'd be offended at the pleasant wishes offered by somebody who is religious.

I'm the opposite of you. I AM religious , somewhat anyway, but it doesn't bother me that others are not.

Must be something about respecting the first amendment rights of EVERYONE not just those we agree with.

That's not the opposite.

For, like you, I am not put-off by the non-religious thoughts of some folks or the religious beliefs of others. God bless them all.

Except I do detest Islam, that fucked up bullshit religion of the pedophile Mohammed (peanut butter and jelly) who was a huge scumbag sociopathic piece of shit.

 

[Mustang]

I can't help but think that all these uber-patriots are one step away from being nationalistic fucktards, akin to the Nazis, that want to define what an American should be.

The founders must be rolling in their graves.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson

The GOP has a lot of scoundrels as members.

 

[Dot Com]

But why would anyone deny a public official or a Tim Tebow or anybody else their unalienable right to profess their faith in a God or anything else if they are inspired or as a matter of concience compelled to express it? How does that infringe on anybody else's rights? Tolerance works both ways. You have the right to pooh pooh, if you choose to do so, the idea of God's intervention or help with anything. But others have the right to believe that He is and He does.

So its a "He"? Are you an adherent to any particular religion?

"He" is the traditional pronoun that those of the JudeoChristian faith use for the "Father God" of the Old and New Testaments. But intellectually, God is spirit and therefore unencumbered by gender.

And I am a Christian with allegiance to no particular denomination. I was rasied Methodist, have attended, worked with, and worshipped with Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and other, and was an active member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) most of my adult life, mostly because of the intellectual freedom that particular group afforded me, and I am currently an active member of a non denominational congregation.

Does it matter?

ummm..... yes. That makes your opinion subjective.

And I didn't even suggest that belief in God has anything to do with how patriotic someone is. My point was that, when nobody's unalienable rights are involved, an intolerant minority should not be able to deny customs and traditions that the majority wants to observe.

as I said earlier, you have the other 16 hrs of the day to trumpet from the rooftops your belief in a deity. Don't do it on the gov't dime.