The pledge of allegiance

[Maverick]

livinitup

Very fair on the politics thing i saw it in other posts and did not think about it. My appologies.

Apologies accepted. Everyone makes mistakes and since you just joined the board, I wouldn't expect you to be completely familiar with the way we do things here.

livinitup

All i can say about the next part is wow... my oppologies for my offense, Its yours, Ill shut up

Please, don't feel like you have to shut up. You expressed your opinion and I responded. It's easy for someone who might not be familiar with the pledge case to latch onto the common responses like the one about leaving the country. But when I see those kinds of arguements, I'll call you on it.

livinitup

I do agree that it should not be hammered into the kids like they do at school now a days. However the idea behind it is to show your country your love and respect for them. I have seen War Vets cry as they say that pledge remembering the friends they lost in previous wars. To walk up to a Vet and say i dont think that thing should even be around well...he'd beat you up...

Micheal Newdow, the atheist in the pledge case, is not asking to ban the entire pledge. All his supporters want is to change the pledge back to what it was before 1954.

Besides, war vets and other people can pledge their alligeance to the United States privately in whatever manner they choose. The issue here is not how inidivduals decide to pledge allegiance by themselves or with a private group of people. What we want to preserve is the nuetrality of the government itself with respect to religion.

livinitup

Your right drilling it into a kid will not help matters, teachers and faculty try to use it as a way to get kids to respect their country however when the pledge is taught, the respect part i think alot of times gets left out.

I think any compulsory excercise is bound to be empty of any meaning. Even though students have the legal right to abstain from saying the pledge, I still consider the recitation of it to be compulsory in nature. I don't know of any schoolchildren who are aware of their right to abstain from the pledge.

[AuntieSocial]

I have to question the notion of the pledge being "heritage honor." To support this, I am using a couple of paragraphs from the history of the pledge site that I posted in an earlier reply:

In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for Youths' Companion, a national family magazine for youth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national circulation of its day with a circulation around 500,000. Two liberal businessmen, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned Youths' Companion.

One hundred years ago the American flag was rarely seen in the classroom or in front of the school Upham changed that. In 1888, the magazine began a campaign to sell American flags to the public schools. By 1892, his magazine had sold American flags to about 26 thousands schools.

In 1891, Upham had the idea of using the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America to promote the use of the flag in the public schools. The same year, the magazine hired Daniel Ford's radical young friend, Baptist minister, Nationalist, and Christian Socialist leader, Francis Bellamy, to help Upham in his public relations work. Bellamy was the first cousin of the famous American socialist, Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, "Looking Backward", published in 1888, described a utopian Boston in the year 2000. The book spawned an elitist socialist movement in Boston known as "Nationalism," whose members wanted the federal government to national most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of this movement and a vice president of its auxiliary group, the Society of Christian Socialists. He was a baptist minister and he lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism. He gave a speech on "Jesus the Socialist" and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his Boston church, the Bethany Baptist church, because of his socialist activities. He then joined the staff of the Youths' Companion.
Emphasis mine

The pledge was not added at the time of the forefathers. Also, the push to have the pledge (and flags) in schools was a marketing campaign by two individuals who didn't wish to increase national patriotism (though that was definitely a secondary consideration). As shown in the bolded portion above, they wantd to sell flags to schools!

If we want children to learn about their partriotic roles, why not design curriculae that encourages patriotism while teaching responsible citizenship/government? Maybe they could start with teaching the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and its Amendments (the Bill of Rights). Teach children who the founding fathers were (they were not all Christians), and teach about the history in Europe and early Colonial America that lead to the importance of the words in the Constitution.

[livinitup]

Maverick said:

livinitup

Micheal Newdow, the atheist in the pledge case, is not asking to ban the entire pledge. All his supporters want is to change the pledge back to what it was before 1954.

Besides, war vets and other people can pledge their alligeance to the United States privately in whatever manner they choose. The issue here is not how inidivduals decide to pledge allegiance by themselves or with a private group of people. What we want to preserve is the nuetrality of the government itself with respect to religion.


I think any compulsory excercise is bound to be empty of any meaning. Even though students have the legal right to abstain from saying the pledge, I still consider the recitation of it to be compulsory in nature. I don't know of any schoolchildren who are aware of their right to abstain from the pledge.

ok just several clarifying things the idea bout eliminating the pledge was a post further up sorry it did not have to deal with the Micheal case... However i feel as i have always felt i consider the star spangled banner and the pledge to be on the same lvl of importance.

Regarding schoolchildren you are quite correct they dont learn about that to middle or high school, i know in middle school we could sit down durring the pledge of allegance and not have anyone say anything to us... Im guessing this is not evident in all schools?

[livinitup]

AuntieSocial said:

If we want children to learn about their partriotic roles, why not design curriculae that encourages patriotism while teaching responsible citizenship/government? Maybe they could start with teaching the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and its Amendments (the Bill of Rights). Teach children who the founding fathers were (they were not all Christians), and teach about the history in Europe and early Colonial America that lead to the importance of the words in the Constitution.

I think that is a wonderful idea, I would say that the whole patriotic idealism has fallen almost completely out of school systems. this is a very important part of our history and needs to be infisized (bad sp) We all agree that greed is the wrong idea to do anything...

What are your thoughts on the star spangled banner should it be song before every game or is that a forceful thing that does not need to exist either...by that i mean a person gets a choice it should not ever be a public event. Also what about hte idea of the fourth of July... Just tring to get your perspective here

[BaalShemRa]

Livin,

Do you have to say the pledge at school right now?

[pieisgood]

wow. I really should have caught the politics stuff, I've been here for quite a bit sorry mav.

I fully support the America, it's the pledge that I don't support. I would love to say the pledge, but I don't believe in it's current version. In schools, it's also wrong to take time out of class to support theism. It's like saying "women are better then men" before class every day, and just because the majority of citizens are women (I think that's right... oh well, if it's not let's just pretend it is for the sake of the argument ) doesn't mean that it should be passed. If the majority of the citizens are Christians, and they want everybody who isn't Christians killed, don't the rest of us have a right to protest that? I know that this situation isn't quite so darastic, but my point is that we shouldn't need a majority to have something changed if it goes fundamentally against what this country says is right.

[livinitup]

BaalShemRa said:

Livin,

Do you have to say the pledge at school right now?

Im in college...we dont have any formal practices of anything i do what i want when i want. Now the other day we had a special saramony for all those who fell since 9-11, and Yes i did stand up and say it and i was very proud of it. By now the idea is a person should no what it means...unfortunity this is not true.

[livinitup]

I fully support the America

;D ;D ;D

it's the pledge that I don't support. I would love to say the pledge, but I don't believe in it's current version.

This is the delema, You dont want to edit it out (that is while in current form)( i was correct in reading that in a pervious post correct?) so then i guess just dont say it.

In schools, it's also wrong to take time out of class to support theism.

oh oh new thread - prayer in schools...

I know that this situation isn't quite so darastic, but my point is that we shouldn't need a majority to have something changed if it goes fundamentally against what this country says is right.

Well then your gonna have to change the fundamentals of the constitution under the whole Majority rules situations.

Here is the problem the country does not think its wrong. This goes back to another post i had today a minority obviously is not the majority in the nation so 1 person can be a minority. OK this one person decides he wants to wear a small star to cover all his privates, now the law finds it as indecent exposure (Famous people are exempt *wink*) However he feels hes covered up enough and that he is right therefore the country should change to meet his needs.

Did i in some way miss your point because i was not chrystal clear on some aspects?

[Yaw]

Maverick threatened it, I'm doing it. This thread really belongs in the Politics section. So, *fling*.

The politics of Bush item has been split off from this thread. Please go to the new Bush's record thread to comment on that.

[Maverick]

The following quote from this news article is an example of how the words "under God" are much more than ceremonial deism:

Morgan Martin, 6th grader at Heritage Elementary

The words "under God" are not just words to Americans, they are very important. Our nation is "under God" and always will be," says Morgan Martin in her letter. "You can take the meaningful words "under God" out of the Pledge...but they will always be in Americans' hearts."

If the words "under God" only exist in the pledge because of their historical significance, why does this 6th grader seem to think it's anything more?

I'll give you a hint: The purpose of the words was not to affirm their historical significance (especially since the words were added in 1954).