Is it time to retire the Pledge of Allegiance?

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."

make em say this, (excepr substitute the Richard STands
in there)

Juro fidelidad a la bandera
de los Estados Unidos de América,
y a la república que representa(na Ricardo Stands)
una nación bajo Dios,
indivisible cón libertad
y justicía para todós.

(edgarblythe looks for razzberry emoticon to post to Finn)

It ain't signing a loyalty oath that makes one a good American. It's working to make the country be all it can be.

Most people don't even think about the words they are reciting - especially so with kids. In this regard its not a true oath taking but a small and harmless ritual that emphasizes a sense of patriotism.

This is one thing that makes it insidious - The unthinking part. The kind of patriotism it helps instil is the unthinking kind.

Many persons with my stance have fought in wars, if that is your measure of standing up for the nation. I volunteered for service, and actually served on a ship that was prepared to do battle, unlike so many of the Republican patriotic leaders. As I said before, it's trying to make America to be all it can be that marks a good citizen, not jingoism and unthinking fealty to coercive rituals.

LETS ALL SAY IT TOGETHER

I pledge a lesion to theflag

A the United STates ofAmerica

And to the repulic of Richard Stands

One nation, unna goda (davida)

in a dirigible

With leerty and cheezwiz forall

Thats how I remember it ferom 2nd grade

edgarblythe wrote:

Most people don't even think about the words they are reciting - especially so with kids. In this regard its not a true oath taking but a small and harmless ritual that emphasizes a sense of patriotism.

This is one thing that makes it insidious - The unthinking part. The kind of patriotism it helps instil is the unthinking kind.

Many persons with my stance have fought in wars, if that is your measure of standing up for the nation. I volunteered for service, and actually served on a ship that was prepared to do battle, unlike so many of the Republican patriotic leaders. As I said before, it's trying to make America to be all it can be that marks a good citizen, not jingoism and unthinking fealty to coercive rituals.

Good grief is the Pledge of Allegiance really worth all of your righteous indignation?

Never liked the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without "under God". My problem with it is that it makes a country and its form of government the object of a quasi-religious affirmation. This gets the proper relation between a nation and its citizens backwards. Granted, it's not quite as bad as East Germany, which went as far as establishing a secular ritual called Jugendweihe, which was modeled after the Christian confirmation Bar Mizwah, and which teenagers were expected to go through. But the America's national quasi-religion embodied in the pledge is still too close for my comfort.

[size=7]Damn! Another political thread I couldn't resist posting to![/size]

Thomas wrote:

Never liked the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without "under God". My problem with it is that it makes a country and its form of government the object of a quasi-religious affirmation. This gets the proper relation between a nation and its citizens backwards. Granted, it's not quite as bad as East Germany, which went as far as establishing a secular ritual called Jugendweihe, which was modeled after the Christian confirmation Bar Mizwah, and which teenagers were expected to go through. But the America's national quasi-religion embodied in the pledge is still too close for my comfort.

[size=7]Damn! Another political thread I couldn't resist posting to![/size]

Quasi-religious?

"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."

As a furener, you may be excused your lack of appreciation for the daily reality associated with the Pledge.

I assure you that the overwhelming majority of its reciters do not achieve a state of rapture, go glassy eyed, or feel the spirit of America move within them.

Read the words. Even by Obama's definition of patriotism, the pledge is not objectionable. Those of us who recite it (with mindfulness) are not swearing an oath to any government or administration. We are pledging our allegiance to a nation that embodies the concepts of a republic based on the principle of liberty and justice for all.

I would be happy to debate the person who cannot support such an allegiance.

Now consider the reality of The Pledge.

School children and members of the Knights of Columbus do not go slack-jawed during their recitals, nor do they gyrate uncontrollably or kiss snakes. They do not get angry or even impassioned. They may recognize that for the moment they are engaged in a ritual, and, it is hoped, that they perceive that ritual, in some small way, as an enforcement of their patriotism.

If you listen to these anti-Pledge zealots you will totally misunderstand the reality of the role it plays in our society.

The American writer Sylvia Wright coined the term mondegreen in an essay "The Death of Lady Mondegreen," which was published in Harper's Magazine in November 1954.[1] In the essay, Wright described how, as a young girl, she misheard the final line from the 17th century ballad "The Bonnie Earl O' Murray." She wrote:

When I was a child, my mother used to read aloud to me from Percy's Reliques, and one of my favorite poems began, as I remember:
Ye Highlands and ye Lowlands,
Oh, where hae ye been?
They hae slain the Earl Amurray, [sic]
And Lady Mondegreen.
The actual fourth line is "And laid him on the green