Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phrase)

[Aunt Spiker]

I found this to be extremely interesting - the only thing I thought I knew about the Pledge is that "under God" was added in - in the 1950's.

The original version:

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

The word 'to' was added in 1892
The phrase 'the flag of the United States' was added (and replaced 'my') in 1923.
Then "of America" was added the following year - in 1924.

(oh - oops! Link: http://www.united-states-flag.com/pledge-of-allegiance.html)

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Wow...that is interesting. I sort of like the old version better.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The version they use today (with God included) is the version I learned and recited every day in school growing up, so it is the one I'm most fond of.

I know there is a big campaign from the left to get the word "God" taken out, but I'd like to point out that although the pledge has been added to many times in our history, never has anything been taken out. Adding words to enhance something is one thing, but taking something out just to satisfy the selfishness of the very few, is ridiculous.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The version they use today (with God included) is the version I learned and recited every day in school growing up, so it is the one I'm most fond of.

I know there is a big campaign from the left to get the word "God" taken out, but I'd like to point out that although the pledge has been added to many times in our history, never has anything been taken out. Adding words to enhance something is one thing, but taking something out just to satisfy the selfishness of the very few, is ridiculous.

Ok. Let's "add" the word 'no' between 'under' and 'god'. Then, we're not taking anything out. Don't like that idea? Why not? Because it goes against your religion? Well, then how do we make the statement neutral, so that all of us can genuinely recite the pledge?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Ok. Let's "add" the word 'no' between 'under' and 'god'. Then, we're not taking anything out. Don't like that idea? Why not? Because it goes against your religion? Well, then how do we make the statement neutral, so that all of us can genuinely recite the pledge?

*yawn*
After 50 YEARS the argument is officially OLD.

God is on our money, in our Constitution and in our Declaration of Independence. Do these documents need to be rewritten? Whether people like you or me believe in him or not *doesn't matter* because *many who founded the US and paved the path* believed they did so with his blessing (or whatever).

I don't mind it - eventhough I'm anti-religiou - because, to me, it's sentimental and symbolic - and meaningful to others. The minority on this issue surely does *not* outweigh the majority.

And it's such a non-issue, really. There are so many other more important things to really get yourself stirred over and fired up for.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Ok. Let's "add" the word 'no' between 'under' and 'god'. Then, we're not taking anything out. Don't like that idea? Why not? Because it goes against your religion? Well, then how do we make the statement neutral, so that all of us can genuinely recite the pledge?

I don't like it because it contradicts the principals this country was founded on. It's just that simple.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

I don't like it because it contradicts the principals this country was founded on. It's just that simple.

Likewise, including the word "God" contradicts the principles the country was founded on. It's even simpler.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Ok. Let's "add" the word 'no' between 'under' and 'god'. Then, we're not taking anything out. Don't like that idea? Why not? Because it goes against your religion? Well, then how do we make the statement neutral, so that all of us can genuinely recite the pledge?

How about dropping the political correctness bs in this country. It facinates me that the pledge was not much of an issue in the 50, 60's, 70's, then somewhere in the 80/90's its not correct to recite it any more. Aunt Spiker on post 5 summed it up pretty well. The pledge ment something to many of the past generations. Their efforts made it possible for those hear today to voice their opinions and even reject saying the pledge. Tradition is not always a bad thing.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The pledge ment something to many of the past generations.

Generation, singular. The pledge was changed to add the word "God" in 1954, so it only had a chance to mean something to one generation before, as you put it, it became incorrect to recite it in the 80s.

There were a lot of other things that were considered OK in the 50s and 60s that aren't considered OK today. And thank God for that. Why don't you just do what the founding fathers intended and not make any law respecting the establishment of a religion?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Likewise, including the word "God" contradicts the principles the country was founded on. It's even simpler.

Too funny - considering that the principles our country was founded on are written out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constititution - which include words like 'Creator' and 'God' everywhere.

The horror!

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Whether people like you or me believe in him or not *doesn't matter* because *many who founded the US and paved the path* believed they did so with his blessing (or whatever).

I don't mind it - eventhough I'm anti-religiou - because, to me, it's sentimental and symbolic - and meaningful to others. The minority on this issue surely does *not* outweigh the majority.

I couldn't agree with you more here.

I'm not a religious person. I do not go to church, and I don't pray to any god, but I respect the beliefs and traditions of this country and the men who founded it. Anyone who is offended by the word "God" is either hell bent on the countries destruction, or is so filled with hate for religion, that they want it and it's followers destroyed. Either way, they are hateful, pathetic human beings in my eyes.

It's the same way I see those who insist that homosexual unions must be called "marriage". It's supposed to be about equal rights, not about a name. People that insist that it be called marriage, are knowingly trying to destroy a 2000 year old religious ritual and purposely offending millions and millions of people unnecessarily. Anyone who claims that gay couples receiving all the recognition and legal rights as man/woman couples do, that that isn't enough for them and insist it be called "marriage", are nothing but hateful, pathetic human beings also.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Likewise, including the word "God" contradicts the principles the country was founded on. It's even simpler.

Sorry... but you must be thinking of another country... America was founded on a belief in God.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Too funny - considering that the principles our country was founded on are written out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constititution - which include words like 'Creator' and 'God' everywhere.

The horror!

Well, first point the Declaration of Independence isn't law, it was more like a memo.

Second, please find the word "God" in the Constitution. And once you've given up on that because it's not there, just for fun why don't you try to explain how government endorsement of a monotheistic deity doesn't constitute a state establishment of religion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Sorry... but you must be thinking of another country... America was founded on a belief in God.

:doh It saddens me that the American educational system has failed you so badly. The USA was founded by Enlightenment-era thinkers who for the most part didn't even believe in a personal deity.

Read some history, then come back and talk to us some more.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

:doh It saddens me that the American educational system has failed you so badly. The USA was founded by Enlightenment-era thinkers who for the most part didn't even believe in a personal deity.

Read some history, then come back and talk to us some more.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have read my history... Our real history, not the revisionist history the progressives have been altering and rewriting the last hundred years.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

It's the same way I see those who insist that homosexual unions must be called "marriage". It's supposed to be about equal rights, not about a name. People that insist that it be called marriage, are knowingly trying to destroy a 2000 year old religious ritual and purposely offending millions and millions of people unnecessarily. Anyone who claims that gay couples receiving all the recognition and legal rights as man/woman couples do, that that isn't enough for them and insist it be called "marriage", are nothing but hateful, pathetic human beings also.

You're basically advocating the "separate but equal" standard that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education as unconstitutional. People who advocate apartheid are the only hateful, pathetic human beings I can see.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Too funny - considering that the principles our country was founded on are written out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constititution - which include words like 'Creator' and 'God' everywhere.

The horror!

The constitution does not mention god.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The constitution does not mention god.

You know what's scary is that people actual think this. And it's not like they ever read the darn thing to figure out that they're actually wrong.

By the way, great quote in your sig. "Jesus was nice to everyone except religious people." Too true, too true.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

You're basically advocating the "separate but equal" standard that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education as unconstitutional. People who advocate apartheid are the only hateful, pathetic human beings I can see.

Marriage has always been defined throughout world history as a union between a man and a woman, so whether you like it or not, they are different. Comparing that issue to a racial discrimination decision is apples and oranges. Gay couples receiving all the recognition and legal rights of heterosexual unions, is not discriminatory and is fair in every way. Insisting it be called "Marriage", only serves one purpose... to spit in the face of a long held religious tradition and to inflict sorrow on the people who believe in that tradition.

This is off topic, so if you want to continue this topic with me, start another thread on it.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

:doh It saddens me that the American educational system has failed you so badly. The USA was founded by Enlightenment-era thinkers who for the most part didn't even believe in a personal deity.

Read some history, then come back and talk to us some more.

Personal Gods still ruled the day. Deism was common, but not common enough for your statement to be reflected in that. Take care with statements such as those by reading history with some humility.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The constitution does not mention god.

No, it doesn't. But that does not change the fact that religion played a very significant part in our founding.

Just look at the buildings and monuments in Washington DC. They are riddled with religious references and depictions. Take a look at speeches given by the founding fathers and our past presidents. Hell, congress for many many years used to open up their sessions with a prayer, and in fact church services were actually held in congress on Sundays for a long time.

As you probably know, all 50 states in America have their own constitutions. Do you know how many of those state constitutions reference God or a creator in them? All 50 of them do, that's how many.

The role that god and religion played in the founding of this country is irrefutable, so could you please stop insulting everyones intelligence by claiming that it didn't. It just makes you and others claiming the same look foolish and uneducated.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

But that does not change the fact that religion played a very significant part in our founding.

So did slavery. What's your point?

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

So did slavery. What's your point?

Likewise, including the word "God" contradicts the principles the country was founded on. It's even simpler.

Do you really need to play that game?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Personal Gods still ruled the day. Deism was common, but not common enough for your statement to be reflected in that. Take care with statements such as those by reading history with some humility.

That's a fair criticism, but it's not entirely accurate either. Personal gods didn't "carry the day" during the time the Constitution was written, it was the period between the first and second Great Awakenings, after all. Religious fervor in this country has always occurred in fits and starts and religiosity peaked in the 1760s and church attendance nationwide was around 10% at the time the Constitution was written.

Moreover, the stamp of the enlightment was put on the founding principles of the country itself. The Framers were forward thinking individuals, they specifically wrote the Constitution to progress beyond the morals of the day. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both deists and they were the primary writers of the Constitution, and they clearly left their mark on it in the establishment clause. Does this mean every single founding father was a deist? No, but it does mean that people who support bringing God into the pledge of allegiance need to look elsewhere beside the intent of the Framers to support their cause.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Do you really need to play that game?

I'd hardly call it a game, it's a very serious matter.