One Nation Under God (1 Viewer)

[quietrage]

I have not posted here in a while so i do not know if this is the right place for this, but it is the best i found.

The debate over the phrase under God in the Pledge is an on going one. However what no one talks about is the evolution of the pledge. The first version written in 1892 did not mention God and the author fought every change .
This is the first version:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
It underwent several changes until it came to the current version. So why not go back to the first version so Francis Bellamy stops rolling in his grave?

 

[FallingPianos]

I have not posted here in a while so i do not know if this is the right place for this, but it is the best i found.

The debate over the phrase under God in the Pledge is an on going one. However what no one talks about is the evolution of the pledge. The first version written in 1892 did not mention God and the author fought every change .
This is the first version:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
It underwent several changes until it came to the current version. So why not go back to the first version so Francis Bellamy stops rolling in his grave?

sounds good to me.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No arguement here. I wonder where I can find public record of the rationale for making us a "Nation under god."

 

[massive_attack]

I think it was an anti-communist thing.

We try to portay the communist as godless so in turn anything that embraces god = anti-communist.

I could easily be wrong, I just woke up.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

I think it was an anti-communist thing.

We try to portay the communist as godless so in turn anything that embraces god = anti-communist.

I could easily be wrong, I just woke up.

you are essentially right. It was the beginning of the cold war that initited the addtion of these words.

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm

 

[jfuh]

you are essentially right. It was the beginning of the cold war that initited the addtion of these words.

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm

I believe Eisenhower is probably regretting adding that line now after seeing it's useage as justification for religious calls and affirmations of the head poncho of hearing the words of god.

 

[Columbusite]

Here's 106 pages of fun-filled reading on the topic.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...hrase-under-god-should-pledge-allegiance.html

 

[Stinger]

So why not go back to the first version so Francis Bellamy stops rolling in his grave?

We should but Christians will never let it happen. For some inexplicable reason they demand that government support and sanction thier faith in offical activities and functions.

 

[Stinger]

I think it was an anti-communist thing.

We try to portay the communist as godless so in turn anything that embraces god = anti-communist.

I could easily be wrong, I just woke up.

YOu are correct. And it was wrong to do it then and wrong to still have it in place.

 

[aps]

I'd like to see "under God" taken out. We don't need that statement in there anymore.

 

[jfuh]

I'd like to see "under God" taken out. We don't need that statement in there anymore.

In reality I think, who the hell cares? It's a line in the pledge of alligiance, with only a face value. Only the fundamentals use it to try and validate anything. IF we are to remove "Under god" then we'd also need to remove "in god we trust" from all cash and so on. I don't think it's an issue at all, just the desperate fundamentals trying to make an issue out of nothing as always - more claim to the "godless left" and other bullshit.

 

[Columbusite]

In reality I think, who the hell cares? It's a line in the pledge of alligiance, with only a face value. Only the fundamentals use it to try and validate anything. IF we are to remove "Under god" then we'd also need to remove "in god we trust" from all cash and so on. I don't think it's an issue at all, just the desperate fundamentals trying to make an issue out of nothing as always - more claim to the "godless left" and other bullshit.

Fundamentalists?

 

[Columbusite]

Americans United Welcomes Defeat Of 'Pledge Protection Act'

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServS...ticle&id=8289&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

 

[Thelost1]

yes, it should be removed, but why waste time on something so small when every time it is quoted you can simply show that it was added is the 50's

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Because not everybody knows it was added in the 50's. The majority of people who say the Pledge regularly -- i.e., schoolchildren -- have no idea of the history of it until they reach high school age or so, by which time they have already spoken the words thousands of times, and have many of their opinions and values already set in concrete, like the rest of us.

It's a question of the power of words. If words can actually affect us, can change people's thoughts, then this is no small thing: considering the strength of the phrase "one nation under God," and the prominence of its usage, in the oath that we swear, an oath that makes us Americans in the eyes of many, this is a powerful statement, and one that can't help but influence people. As an atheist, I would know -- I did know, when I was younger -- that I was in the minority, and that it wasn't a particularly popular minority. I knew it because I knew I lived in a nation under god.

It matters.

 

[LaughingLatimer]

It should be changed.

 

[Duke]

I have not posted here in a while so i do not know if this is the right place for this, but it is the best i found.

The debate over the phrase under God in the Pledge is an on going one. However what no one talks about is the evolution of the pledge. The first version written in 1892 did not mention God and the author fought every change .
This is the first version:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
It underwent several changes until it came to the current version. So why not go back to the first version so Francis Bellamy stops rolling in his grave?

I prefer the first one, aesthetically. From a lyrical point of view, it appears that they haphazardly jammed "Under God" in there, hoping nobody would notice.


Duke

 

[Stinger]

I prefer the first one, aesthetically. From a lyrical point of view, it appears that they haphazardly jammed "Under God" in there, hoping nobody would notice.


Duke

It destroys the meter.

 

[Duke]

It destroys the meter.

Exactly! It's like:

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
*Ahem* one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.



Duke