The pledge of allegiance: true or not?

[CalebHayes]

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.


Is it really true? Do we have liberty and justice for all? Or is it just wishful thinking?

[JohnLocke]

1. Interesting Question.

The Pledge, to me, is not a statement of fact, or a mindless mantra, but more of a statement of principles -- that of what the U.S. should be: a Republic, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In reality, however, this can never be achieved -- all nations can be divided; we can never achieve liberty and justice for all,. But the flag, which represents the nation's progress, indicates that we will progress and become closer to these goals -- or so I hope. In the way, the Pledge is true.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Yes we are pledging allegiance to those ideals

not spouting some propaganda line that things dont need getting better.

'the Republic for which the flag stands' is not just who we are but who we strive to become.

[JohnLocke]

20. You got it.

'The Republic for which the flag stands' is not just who we are but who we strive to become.

Couldn't have said it better.

[jtb33]

19. Exactly.

Well said.

[Christ was Socialist]

2. It applies to those who don't give a shit about the community

and are predatory capitalists

[JohnLocke]

4. A bit of a cynical view.

But there is more than a grain of truth to that; the way our legal and economic system are made, the famous, privileged, and wealthy will always manage to manipulate the system in their favor.

But the Pledge itself doesn't claim that the U.S has 'liberty and justice for all' -- it only is a statement of our allegiance to the flag, which represents those values. In this way, the flag is a symbol of a more perfect version of ourselves, the progressive vision of working towards becoming more of a country that truly had 'liberty and Justice for all.' In this way, we don't pledge alligence to a nation, but an idea.

[Az]

3. Inclusion of the phrase Under God invalidates the rest of the statement

One nation, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all is inclusive.

Under god is exclusive. By definition it excludes those that do not believe in god. This invalidates the phrases "One Nation" and "For All".

Its pretty straight forward. Its either one nation or its under god. It cannot be both.

[JohnLocke]

5. True.

My personal belief is that it is both divisive and was put there under bad circumstances; therefore, it should be removed.

[hughee99]

10. It's not just for athiests anymore

Isn't the pledge of allegiance also divisive in another way. Some religions don't allow their followers to "pledge" to anything, so we have both athiests and very religious people refusing to say it because of their beliefs.

[Az]

11. Don't forget the polytheists

Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans, there are bunches of beliefs out there that are not under god. It's not just us lil ole atheists.

[JohnLocke]

15. Such as Quakers...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. When I was in elementary school I stopped saying those two words

I just say the whole rest of the pledge and skip those words.

[kiahzero]

21. Atheists need to focus on the broader picture in this case

"Under God" doesn't just exclude atheists.

It excludes Buddhists, Hindus, Neo-pagans, Deists, and any other religion which does not believe that a deity exists, is male, is unique, and has control over events on Earth.

By focusing solely on how it excludes those who do not believe in a deity, the argument against the phrase is weakened. When you consider that eliminates all of the groups listed above, as well as atheists, you see that it fails even the limited interpretation of the Establishment Clause put forward by Chief Justice Rhenquist.

To do so without including the above groups, to demonstrate the law is unconstitutional by Rhenquist's standards, you must demonstrate that atheism is, in fact, a "religion" - something that is possible given the right definition of "religion" (the one I'm thinking of is philosophical), but much more difficult.

On Edit: I can see you've included some of these groups in your post above. Nice. =D

[Az]

22. I expect you will find

that most atheists are aware of the multitude of beliefs in this world. I further suspect that you will find those insisting "under god" remain in the pledge may not be anywhere near as aware of other beliefs.

Atheists defend the wall of seperation not just for selfish reasons. But because many recognise the protection it extends to all beliefs and that this nation cannot be in any sense of the word free if we do not have freedom of belief.

[kiahzero]

23. No question

But Newdow, in his oral arguments, seemed to focus solely on atheism - a mistake that may end up costing him the case.

Atheists defend the wall of seperation not just for selfish reasons. But because many recognise the protection it extends to all beliefs and that this nation cannot be in any sense of the word free if we do not have freedom of belief.

Exactly.

I hope I did not offend with my post - it was meant solely as advice for PR and legal arguments about "under God."

[Az]

24. Specific harm

When arguing a case before the court it is necissary to present an example of specific harm. A case can be dismissed if it is argued only in theory. Without a specific example of harm it reduced to a theoretical case and will not be considered. Thus Newdow had to link to his daughter and present a real example of harm which in this case was an atheist being harmed by the issue.

[kiahzero]

25. Right

But it's possible to do so in the abstract - point out that this specific harm is in fact a pattern of harm that happens to many people.

Newdow did a damn fine job for the first time ever in a courtroom, but I can't help to wonder if a well-trained and experienced lawyer might have done better.

Not that there's anything that can be done about it now but wait.

[bemildred]

6. A vacuous obedience ritual.

I would not mind stating allegiance to the republic,
and the Constitution (conspicuously left out in the pledge)
but a flag? The rest is babble.

[JohnLocke]

7. I don't really think so.

"A vacuous obedience ritual"
This is one of the problems with teaching the pledge in the early grades -- young children repeat the words without knowing their meaning, leading to a cheapening of the words contained in it. What we really should be encouraging is critical thought about the pledge and its meaning.
Reagaing it being an "obedience ritual" -- I don't think so. Under the proper circumstances, I think that the pledge encourages us to look beyond political leadership and pledge one's allegiance to the physical land and democratic values of the country's founding.
----
"I would not mind stating allegiance to the republic,
and the Constitution (conspicuously left out in the pledge)
but a flag? The rest is babble."
It's not the flag itself, the piece of cloth, that we are pledging our allegiance to, but the values represented by the flag:
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

[bemildred]

12. Critical thought is the last thing that is desired.

It's a pledge, not a discussion, not a reasoned argument.
And it's a pledge made to a piece of cloth, fabricated one
hundred and some years after the founding of the Republic
by a bunch of jingoistic swine who would have been better
served to revere the Constitution, the Declaration, and the
Bill of Rights.

[JohnLocke]

14. "Jingoistic swine"?

Interesting...

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. < * 'to' added in October, 1892. >
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[bemildred]

16. Has a ring to it, doesn't it?

The government would run a peace time economy similar to our
present military industrial complex.

---

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution,
changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a
patriotic oath and a public prayer.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. Republic?

i think we are clearly Imperial at this point.

Indivisible? Oh, stop, youre killing me!

Justice? OK, seriously, stop.

[Az]

9. No, seriously, your killing me - Lady Liberty

Just continuing the thought.

[No2W2004]

13. All animals are equal,

but some animals are more equal than others
-Orwell

[flaminbats]

26. A nice thing to hope for...

one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all


And how many angels can dance on a pin top? http://mathforum.org/algpow/solutions/solution.ehtml?puzzle=66