other
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,473
- Reaction score
- 587
- Location
- VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra
No, it isn't. There is no historical evidence that people went around wearing purple crowns in the colonial/early US. You are simply bringing up a purposefully ridiculous and baseless analogy. There is evidence that the term god was used often in public/government documents, so we do have an idea of their perspective in the matter--ie. this is not "baseless," there is historically relevant information available to us concerning the use of the word.
The whole point, which you seem to have missed, is that people today who want to intervene and remove the word god from the pledge on the basis that it somehow violates the constitution are overlooking the fact that the founders never made any attempt to do so in analogous public documents, etc, despite the known prevalence of the word. You can gain some understanding of what the constitution is and how it should be applied by looking at the people who wrote it, ratified it, and lived under it in the formative years of the United States, as opposed to framing the debate under an entirely modern standard that seeks to purposefully exclude the founder's intent -- Both the founder's inent and modern applicability should be considered if one wants to state that the phrase "under god" is somehow unconstitutional.
No, it isn't. There is no historical evidence that people went around wearing purple crowns in the colonial/early US. You are simply bringing up a purposefully ridiculous and baseless analogy. There is evidence that the term god was used often in public/government documents, so we do have an idea of their perspective in the matter--ie. this is not "baseless," there is historically relevant information available to us concerning the use of the word.
The whole point, which you seem to have missed, is that people today who want to intervene and remove the word god from the pledge on the basis that it somehow violates the constitution are overlooking the fact that the founders never made any attempt to do so in analogous public documents, etc, despite the known prevalence of the word. You can gain some understanding of what the constitution is and how it should be applied by looking at the people who wrote it, ratified it, and lived under it in the formative years of the United States, as opposed to framing the debate under an entirely modern standard that seeks to purposefully exclude the founder's intent -- Both the founder's inent and modern applicability should be considered if one wants to state that the phrase "under god" is somehow unconstitutional.
Last edited:
