Alternative Pledge of Allegiance idea

When a right winger is so obsessed with forcing a notion down everyone's throat, you know it's meant to regiment people's thinking.

1 Reply

One thing to consider about the pledge, how many would be able to write the words out, in entirety? Over time I've noticed people can "babble" a bunch of words what which are strung together only if there are several others doing the same. Kind of makes the whole thing meaningless.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The "god bit" was not a part of the pledge as originally written by the Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The ". . . under god . . ." bullshit was added by Congress in 1954, at the time of the "Red Scare," with the encouragement of President Eisenhower.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I remember when they changed the words. I had always stood silently during the pledge anyway, but those added words made me resentful.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

When a right winger is so obsessed with forcing a notion down everyone's throat, you know it's meant to regiment people's thinking.

Why do you think that 'right wingers' are the only ones who are obsessed with "forcing a notion down everyone's throat?" Socialists are obsessed with forcing health insurance down everyone's throat, and specifically health insurance that covers every medical option available to everyone, including abortion and other birth control.

In fact, socialism in general is about using force to achieve economic/social goals. If they didn't want to force taxes "down everyone's throat," for example, government revenue could come exclusively from voluntary contributions.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

One thing to consider about the pledge, how many would be able to write the words out, in entirety? Over time I've noticed people can "babble" a bunch of words what which are strung together only if there are several others doing the same. Kind of makes the whole thing meaningless.

I used to think so, but the only good thing about dogmatic rote memorization of any information is that it is filed away in your memory for when you begin to gain critical awareness of things and you start re-examining things in your memory to understand them better, in more depth, or from different perspectives.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The "god bit" was not a part of the pledge as originally written by the Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The ". . . under god . . ." bullshit was added by Congress in 1954, at the time of the "Red Scare," with the encouragement of President Eisenhower.

Denial of God/religion is denial of liberty. What better way to prevent such denial than to mention God explicitly along with "liberty and justice for all?"

It doesn't take away your religious liberty to believe according to your own conscience that God is mentioned in the pledge.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

God and religion have nothing to do with liberty. Shoving God into the Pledge implies that the nation must be filled only with God believers, all others should be excluded. Atheists and Satanists can be and often are just as American as any Bible believer...sometimes even more.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

God and religion have nothing to do with liberty. Shoving God into the Pledge implies that the nation must be filled only with God believers, all others should be excluded. Atheists and Satanists can be and often are just as American as any Bible believer...sometimes even more.

Believing in God is irrelevant. You are free to believe in God however you do. It's trying to censor religious expression that is an assault on liberty.

If you don't believe in God as a personal deity, you're free to think of Him as the universe or nature or whatever. Just because some people use "He" and "Him" as personal pronouns for God doesn't prevent you from using "She/Her" or "It," if that's truly what you believe.

The pledge of allegiance doesn't specify any pronouns for God, though. It just says that it is a nation under God, meaning no human authority is our ultimate king, but rather natural authority/law, which goes beyond and above mortal humans.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Jesus wept . . . what part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . do you not understand? No one is censoring religion in getting government out of the religion business. Your entire post reeks of simple-minded, puerile theism.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus wept . . . what part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . do you not understand? No one is censoring religion in getting government out of the religion business. Your entire post reeks of simple-minded, puerile theism.

What does the pledge of allegiance have to do with 'the religion business?'

No one is charging royalties or paying to recite the pledge of allegiance.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Hmm

That is an interesting solution to this issue. If someone were to pay me each morning, let's say $200 sounds fair, I will say the pledge of allegiance most respectfully.

2 Replies

Quote:

India's national airline has told its crew to end every in-flight announcement with the patriotic phrase, "Jai Hind" (Hail the motherland) - and this has tickled social media users.

Air India's company advisory instructs crew to say the phrase after a "slight pause and with much fervour".

This quickly inspired tweets of imaginary in-flight announcements that end with "Jai Hind".

But many wondered if patriotism was the right focus for the struggling airline.

Air India, which is in severe debt, has not turned a profit since 2007 and a government offer to sell a controlling stake in it failed to attract any takers.

The directive from Air India comes at a time when patriotism is particularly high in India.

The country has been at loggerheads with its nuclear-armed neighbour Pakistan over the past few weeks, following a deadly suicide bombing that killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary troops in the disputed Kashmir region.

The incident which led to airstrikes by India and the subsequent capture and release of an Indian pilot by Pakistan, saw increasing nationalist sentiment fuelled by national and social media.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47451761

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Hmm

That is an interesting solution to this issue. If someone were to pay me each morning, let's say $200 sounds fair, I will say the pledge of allegiance most respectfully.

So you want to turn the pledge of allegiance into an instrument for achieving socialism in practice while ostensibly paying lip service to liberty and justice for all in the content of speech?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I don't think you know what socialism means.

Thank you for making me laugh.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If someone we're too pay me....say the pledge...respectfully.

Sorry max, once you accept money, respect is gone. However a free lifetime subscription to Soldier of Fortune magazine or Woodchippers of the Wild would be a proper gratuity.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think you know what socialism means.

Thank you for making me laugh.

Socialism is social capitalism. Capitalism is already social to the extent it facilitates coordination and exchange between independent actors, but as long as those actors are truly independent, their economic activities are not the product of social control. Capitalism becomes socialism when it is subjected to intentional manipulation and control to achieve social goals.

So if you pay people to say the pledge of allegiance, you are basically giving them access to a certain amount of forced economic productivity. I.e. you are promising them that other people will provide them with $200 worth of goods/services because they recited the pledge.

That's basically like saying someone can get a slave to grow them $200 worth of cotton by saying "abracadabra." You can call it capitalism because it takes the form of an economic transaction, but what it actually boils down to is forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Nonsense!

I am the one being paid $200 every morning to recite the pledge of allegiance. No one is forcing me to do it, I am doing it of my own free will based on economic incentive (the same reason I go to work every morning).

Whether saying the pledge of allegiance is equal to saying "abacadabra" is up to your own judgement. If you think that saying the pledge of allegiance is just some meaningless nonsense... then don't pay me.

If you love America so much, you will pay me the money. Throw in an extra $100 and I will do it naked (although I never thought I would be in that line of work again).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am the one being paid $200 every morning to recite the pledge of allegiance. No one is forcing me to do it, I am doing it of my own free will based on economic incentive (the same reason I go to work every morning).

Yes, for you it's a voluntary choice. But the $200 you get entitles you to whatever you spend the money on, which requires other people produce the goods and services you receive in exchange for reciting the pledge.

Quote:

Whether saying the pledge of allegiance is equal to saying "abacadabra" is up to your own judgement. If you think that saying the pledge of allegiance is just some meaningless nonsense... then don't pay me.

Why would someone voluntarily pay you to say the pledge of allegiance? When you pledge allegiance, you are pledging to honor the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Should people have to do business with you if you don't honor those basic principles? E.g. you enslave people but you have a right to sell what your slaves produce because you have no responsibility to honor "liberty and justice for all?"

Quote:

If you love America so much, you will pay me the money. Throw in an extra $100 and I will do it naked (although I never thought I would be in that line of work again).

You don't understand what liberty and justice mean; nor do you understand when economic activity is exploitative vs. when it is honest and fair.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Now you are sounding like a socialist.

1) You are saying that people shouldn't be free to pay money for whatever they choose.
2) You are saying that people shouldn't be able to accept money for providing something the payer finds valuable.

The definition of "slavery" is to force someone to do something of value without giving them a choice in the matter or paying them fairly. If you force me to say the pledge of allegiance without paying me, that is slavery.

Paying me enough for saying the pledge of allegiance that I choose to do so willingly is the opposite of slavery. Every job in the free market involves paying someone enough to incentivize them to do something willingly.

In a free market system, people are free to decide on a exchange of whatever they value for whatever price they put on it. I don't know how valuable liberty and justice is to you... it is apparently worth something less than $200.

2 Replies

Alternative Pledge of Allegiance idea

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know