Reply
Sun 6 Jul, 2008 08:13 am
A government/school orchestrated pledge is coercive in nature and, therefore, something that ought to go.
I always just pretended to say the pledge, in grade school.
edgarblythe wrote:I always just pretended to say the pledge, in grade school.
How clever a little lad you were.
edgarblythe wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:I always just pretended to say the pledge, in grade school.
How clever a little lad you were.
Damn straight.
And a butch one too, it appears.
When they changed the words, I became uncomfortable with it. Calling a man "butch" is a bit effiminate, what?
The pledge is another way of cramming religion down a person's throat, among other things.
How 'bout we replace it with a more concise version of the Oath of Citizenship...
Quote:I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service.
I think it lacks the zing of a commercial slogan, and no one will want to say it.
edgarblythe wrote:I think it lacks the zing of a commercial slogan, and no one will want to say it.
I agree it lacks zing. But it's interesting that new citizens are required to say it (or something similar to it). For existing citizens, it seems rather implicit.
That's what I said, and why I quit saying it.
I could say the pledge with a straight face, if it was not expected of me that I would say, "one nation, under God." This is asking an atheist to surrender a fundamental right, merely to assuage the fundamentalist bent of a segment of the population. It is the equivelent of me telling them to say the pledge, promising, "one nation, with no God."
I did like saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day at public school, as a child. We all faced the American flag, and for those few minutes, it almost seemed like the class was a united group of children, rather than the little cliques that existed in the school yard and class room. The pledge was a uniter, not a divider, in my opinion.
I did know, even then, that everyone did not believe in a God. But, that made me feel that this country was a good country, since it did not persecute atheists, or people whose religion was not that of a State religion. The pledge only explained to me the concept of a democracy, in that the majority of the country believes in the existence of a God, and therefore the pledge states, "one nation under God." What a wonderful thing democracy is, I thought, not to persecute the minority that are atheists.
Notice it says "God," not any religion's preferred term for that God.
Also, the thought that the origin of the pledge makes it less purposeful is a specious thought, in my opinion, since one does not look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak.
In fact, the Baptist minister who originally wrote the pledge did not include the words "under God" in his text. That was added during the 1950s commie witch hunts of HUAC and Tailgunner Joe.
Requiring a child who is raised by atheists to pledge allegiance to a nation which is alleged to be under god certainly does constitute the implementation of a state religion.
I refused to say it for a few days in second grade. I really hate repeating other's words...and indoctrination-type mantras.
...and with your hand over your heart and all...Hitlerian to me.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace