"Under God"... should be removed from the "Pledge"

I am old enough to have been forced to read Bible (KJV only) passages aloud in class as part of daily opening exercises, along with reciting the Lord's prayer (Protestant version) and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Failure to comply would result in at minimum a detention and repeated offences could result in suspension. This was by state law and enforced in public schools. I am also old enough to remember when Congress changed the Pledge to include the words Under God. Amazing that the U.S. did just fine during WWI and WWII without those words being in the Pledge.

 

That is amazing stuff; really. I remember saying the "Pledge", but only read the Bible in my Catholic church/classes.

I do remember around 1975, where my fairly closed-minded U.S. Government teacher didn't understand the one Egyptian (possibly Muslim) student, that didn't want to participate in our "Christmas" festivities in December. She sent him to the "office". Now I realize how very wrong she was period and likely would have been sued today. He was a nice kid, and to this day I dislike when people are put-down and measured by many Christians... for not going along with whatever "Christians" want (or think is proper).

 

Actually nothing in 14A rescinds the right of any state to respect an establishment of religion. In fact, the Blaine amendment was proposed in 1875 to accomplish that very thing, but never made it out of Congress.

 

Even so, in the practical sense, the more we inject religion into the power of government... the more problems that will ensue; it is inevitable.

If the "Pledge" was absolutely as far as it was promised to go, that would be fine... but there are always those who are religious, who want MORE control (as we are seeing today with 'birth control' and other issues) than they should have.

Every so often, someone will mention their fear of Muslims and Sharia... etc.; and I always remind them that America will be okay concerning virtually ANY religion, because of that Church/State separation. But as soon as we allow more of this/that into what should only be "secular"... people's actual rights and liberties are going to be more and more affected; as I said above, that is inevitable.

Still, I think that the language in the "Pledge", should be restored to what it was in 1923; the 1954 version was (to me) a political ploy that has only led to the problems we've seen over the last few decades.

The 1923 version is as follows:

 

Put a sock in it, dingbat.

 

Sorry man, bit I have to report you for that. Yes, I 'pledge' to do that now.

 

I think that the language in the "Pledge of Allegiance", should be restored to what it was in 1923.

The 1923 version is as follows:

 

Of course you do, because your sense of worth comes from external authority figures. IOW, you're the kind of "person" who would rat out a Jew in Nazi Germany.

BTW, do me a favor and don't respond to any of my posts from now on, TIA.

 

Actually I think the pledge is a little sick. Why would anyone pledge allegiance to the state? I know it is a statists wet dream, but really, what are we, the Hitler Youth?

 

Most likely your confusion arises from the mistaken belief, held by many, that the nation (to which allegiance is pledged) and its government are one and the same.

 

What is it then? Is it swearing allegiance to the land, to the people, to the principles of the Founding Fathers?

If it is to the land, it's only land. If it's to the people, do I really want to swear allegiance to a nation of illegal aliens and leftists? And lastly, if it is to the Founders, well, they are dead and buried and considered a group of outdated former slave owners.

 

Yes.

Obviously not; but if that's the case it's not the United States of America any more.

The Founding Fathers are one thing, and their stated principles are another.

 

I don't swear allegiance to anyone. Why should I? If you get out of line, which everyone does, then you get a swift kick in the arse. And if you don't change then see ya!!!

 

This Nation was founded on GOD, and on Christian and Biblical Principles. NO, do NOT remove the wording"...one nation, under GOD..."

That's liberal progressive, fascist propaganda. That won't fly.

 

But why would one be forced to swear by something or someone they do not believe in? It would be like asking me to swear allegiance to the state.

Pfft.

If you ask me, the pledge of allegiance was made to foster a sense of Nationalism and they threw religion into the mix to try and sell it. This nationalism helped consolodate unquestion and trusted power in the government of the country. However, now that it has been consolodated in that country, such nationalism is an obstacle of sorts for further centralization of power globally. Now the borders must come down. It's all by design. That is why children in public schools once were required to say the pledge and today they are not.

Yea, I know, my tinfoil hat is on a little crooked, but hey, it is in style these days!!

 

No question, huh? Thomas Jefferson himself condoned - and attended - these Christian services within the halls of Government, and you're now here declaring that they were a violation of the 1st Amendment, when they took place in the same generation of the writing of the Amendment, and by the same guy involved in approving the exact text of the 1st Amendment?

That position is laughable on its face.

It proves that my position is correct, and yours is not - and I'm providing valid proof of Original Intent, which is solely and exactly what the SCOTUS is supposed to be protecting.

Of course - and unfortunately - we've had people like you on the Court over the decades: people who really don't care about the truth of it, but want to change Original Intent to fit their own paradigms...

...while suppressing the religious rights of the rest of us. Your position lauds a religion as well (one you deny): Secular Humanism. The forced absence of Deistic Religions doesn't mean no religion remains standing; it merely means that the new religion is Atheist.

And has already been established, Atheism is indeed a religion.

I get that alot. Always from liberals who hate it when they lose arguments, and have nothing else to say.

 

NO one's being forced. If someone doesn't want to say it, they're free not to say it. The Pledge of Allegiance most definitely was for a sense of Nationalism, but also for the love and loyalty of one's Country, given to U.S. by GOD. What's wrong with that? That's what being a TRUE AMERICAN is all about, love for GOD, Country, Family, Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for ALL.

 

That's no concern of mine. All I care about is that you made the Pledge out to be Hitleresque, which is baloney.

 

The comparison is a valid one. After all, Hitler made people swear loyalty to him as well.

 

My point here is that globalists used nationalism to consolodate power in various countries. Then once the power was consolodated, like it is in the US, power can now be further consolodated in a global fashion. However, that means that God and country and nationalism are now in the way because borders must be erased. So that is why you see God trashed and the country being sold out from under us as it turns into a bannana republic. Pride in ones country is now a hinderence to globalist goals even though it was used by them at one time to achieve the same ends.

 

I've read the Constitution, I'm not sure you have. It makes no mention of God, or "Christian and Biblical Principles", other than to say that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I recently attended a few Tea Party meetings, which all began with the Pledge. This was the first time since elementary school that I recall saying it, and let me tell you it was creepy. It felt like Nurenberg in the '30s. Talk about fascist, you felt like you were right there.

The cadence is just like the Lord's Prayer, by the way, so it's a cross between being in church & Nazi Germany.

 

Section 1 of the 14th says the following.

That this extended the rights protected by the First Amendment to the states was made clear by the Supreme Court in 1925. In Gitlow vs People of State of New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the majority opinion (and in this aspect of the decision the two dissenters concurred) held that:

These provisions of the Constitution deny to both the Federal government and the States the authority to impose the will of the majority concerning religion.

 

I was undecided on this but just cast my vote for "No," that we should leave "under God" in there, and here's why. I am suddenly running across people who think that our rights as people come from the government rather than from our very nature as people. The Declaration says they're endowed by "the Creator," I don't care if you call it "God" or "The Big Bang" or whatever, but the point is that the source of our rights supersedes the government; the people empower the government to protect those rights. If the phrase "one nation under God" can help remind people that the government is not our ultimate authority or power, then keep it in.

 

I view "the Creator" named in the DoI as Mother Nature, so to speak. Our unalienable rights are human rights, which we have because we are rational human beings. They were not granted to us by our king, for example. The Constitution only protects those rights, it does not give us what we already have.

 

The original motto of the U.S. was E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one). We should return to it.

Don't forget the Preamble to the Constitution which points out that it is We the People who establish the Government and it is We the People who have to guarantee to ourselves what we consider to be our rights. Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that it was a "Right" for one man to own another he would a dog or horse.