• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pledge of Allegiance

I alwaysed admired your country...liberty and justice for all...God save your great country, the US


There will never have been a Perfect Country

...



Bur yours is so amazing


But we found rich the 3rd in Lesteir..
 
OrphanSlug said:
And none of it made it into the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The point is their actions reflect a meaning and understanding of the Establishment Clause.

And the fact “none of it made it into the Constitution” isn’t some earth shattering notion. It is, after all, a Constitution! The Constitution is not to enumerate every possible amd permissible exercise of federal power. Doing so is impractical and impossible.
 
Northern Light said:
Hand gestures are similar. They're nationalistic. They made children do it. I was mostly being tongue in cheek btw. I can think of several countries who do the hand gesture. It's all indoctrinating, nationalistic crap that I don't support.
Click to expand...

The problem is your argument treats “all indoctrinating, nationalistic crap” as being the same. It isn’t. Which is why the “seig veil” analogy deserved the proper derision.

Great, you do not support such conduct, as you may rightfully object to such conduct. Your reasons for the objection? A poor analogy, some abstract idea nationalism is bad, the boogeyman, and nothing else.

Jeeze, can you be anymore insulting? You take yourself way too seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can.

However, if you do not want your analogies to suffer the indignity of such a label then use better analogies.
 
NotreDame said:
Irrelevant. The point is their actions reflect a meaning and understanding of the Establishment Clause.

And the fact “none of it made it into the Constitution” isn’t some earth shattering notion. It is, after all, a Constitution! The Constitution is not to enumerate every possible amd permissible exercise of federal power. Doing so is impractical and impossible.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not relevant? That is a first.
 
NotreDame said:
The problem is your argument treats “all indoctrinating, nationalistic crap” as being the same. It isn’t. Which is why the “seig veil” analogy deserved the proper derision.

Great, you do not support such conduct, as you may rightfully object to such conduct. Your reasons for the objection? A poor analogy, some abstract idea nationalism is bad, the boogeyman, and nothing else.



Yes, I can.

However, if you do not want your analogies to suffer the indignity of such a label then use better analogies.
Click to expand...

I see seig heil and the pledge of allegiance as being harmful due to nationalistic indoctrination which is why I compared them.

You're free to see it as a bad analogy. I don't. It's people being blindly stupid about national allegiances. It's coerced and enforced respect, when respect should be earned. People should be proud of their country because it has shown them goodness and upheld them, not because they are made to do it as children or face punishments.

It creates non-thinkers, whether in Germany or the U.S.
 
OrphanSlug said:
We have been through this time and time again.

The pledge of allegiance has been changed and altered several times over, with "under God" not being the first time something along those lines was added to it.

But it was not until the early 1940s that Congress decided to get involved and "recognized officially" the line in question as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Naturally, that was not good enough.

Groups like the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, the Knights of Columbus, and various others added "under God" in how they recite the pledge and of course Congress adopted a new measure. It was damn near bipartisan in support with the likes of Eisenhower in full champion of the idea.

Some would offer this was a stance against the ideologies of the USSR, China, and other communist or socialist powers at the time. Others will offer this was a Christian Conservative stance against prior acts considered anti-Capitalist including the New Deal.

Regardless we are stuck with it even though separation of Church and State is a key tenet (or was) of our Republic.

Another bit of irony, up until the time of Nazi Germany the "salute" while reciting the pledge of allegiance was the exact same. Right arm straight out with a flat hand palm down just like the Nazis did, so of course hand over the heart was our solution to that little problem.
Click to expand...
What is the state church the pledge s referring to? Which religion?
 
Aurora said:
What is the state church the pledge s referring to? Which religion?
Click to expand...
The same one referred to when people claim the US is a "Christian nation" not a "nation of Christians."
 
ASHES said:
The same one referred to when people claim the US is a "Christian nation" not a "nation of Christians."
Click to expand...
You need to never touch U.S. currency again. "In God We Trust"
 
Aurora said:
You need to never touch U.S. currency again. "In God We Trust"
Click to expand...
Let's add Allah, Buddah, Satan, Jehovah, Humanity, etc.
 
NotreDame said:
Oh, so you perceived “forced allegiance.” Human perception of reality can be mistaken. Your perception of “forced allegiance” doesn’t reflect reality. No one is “forced” to recite the pledge. Indeed, some refuse to recite the POA and they aren’t then held at gun point to seek compliance. Students may and have refused to cite the POA, and they may do so with impunity, as the law mandates students have the freedom to refuse to recite the POA.


Your perception isn’t correct.
Click to expand...

It is indeed forced or coerced as any kid who refused to say found out pretty soon via bullying and obvious singling out by all the others in the class. It is the same as refusing to bow a head and say a prayer at the dinner table or refuse to do so at an invocation. The pledge is superfluous nonsense created by whack jobs in the mid-1900s to serve a purpose that has long been discarded. I refuse to say the thing, ever. My fly fishing club was started by an ex-Marine and he started every meeting with the pledge. What the hell the pledge had to do with fly fishing is beyond me.
 
code1211 said:
As I read the letter to which your refer, a reponse to a letter asserting "Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty", the protections that Jefferson confirms protect religion from the government- not the opposite.

He asserts the existence of "separation between Church & State". He actually seems to tear down the notion of there being a separation of Church FROM State and also that there is no need for this.

He affirms his beliefs, as set out in the Declaration, of a faith in God, the flow of rights FROM God and that loyalty to the nation in no way interferes with faith in God or with the practice of religion.

The phrase, "under God" was added, I think, in the post WW2 1950's. Why they left out "Mom and Apple Pie" is a mystery. ;)

Click to expand...

The alternate version substituted "under Ozzie and Harriet" for "under God".
 
joko104 said:
Since you claim expertise on Christianity and Christians, what seminary did you attend and what denomination are you? How many times a week do you go to church?

Do you have a poster of Beijing Moscow Biden and Xi Jinping together on your bedroom wall? Hide a swastika tattoo under your shirt? How many times a day do you pray to Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates?

Why do you most of you Democrats so hate Jews that you want Israel destroyed and want to import Jew-hating Muslims into the USA by the millions? Is that part of you interpretation of YOUR intense Christian belief system you claim expertise in?
Click to expand...


Wow. LOL
 
Northern Light said:
You're free to see it as a bad analogy. I don't. It's people being blindly stupid about national allegiances. It's coerced and enforced respect, when respect should be earned. People should be proud of their country because it has shown them goodness and upheld them, not because they are made to do it as children or face punishments.

It creates non-thinkers, whether in Germany or the U.S.
Click to expand...

I see seig heil and the pledge of allegiance as being harmful due to nationalistic indoctrination which is why I compared them.
Click to expand...

And as I said before, the flaw of your argument is to treat the various and different iterations, kinds, and forms of “nationalistic indoctrination” as the same. Which is why, in part, your comparison of the POA to “seig heil” doesn’t make any sense. Your inability to distinguish between different kinds of nationalistic indoctrination plagues your argument. Nationalistic “indoctrination” need not be the evil boogey man, and isn’t necessarily the evil boogey man.

Oh wait, perhaps I’m remiss to not acknowledge the POV the “nationalistic indoctrination,” which the POA is believed to be an exercise of, while not the same kind of “nationalistic indoctrination” as that which birthed “seig heil,” is nevertheless still harmful because it is “nationalistic indoctrination.” Okay. Okay.

So, illuminate how the POA, a voluntary recitation in public schools, in public venues, etcetera, is “harmful.” Demonstrate, with evidence, the harm. Demonstrate with a logical argument the harm.

Oh wait, you did say the following.

It's people being blindly stupid about national allegiances. It's coerced and enforced respect, when respect should be earned. People should be proud of their country because it has shown them goodness and upheld them, not because they are made to do it as children or face punishments.

It creates non-thinkers, whether in Germany or the U.S.
Click to expand...

Is it? Of course, you have data, evidence, to support your characterization of the people as those being a “people being blindly stupid about national allegiances.” I’m going to venture a guess, you lack evidence and data to support your characterization of these people.

There is a 1st Amendment right to not recite the POA. Which is to say, the government and/or government actors cannot force anyone to recite the POA under the 1st Amendment. Where is the element of “coerced” and “enforced” respect?

It creates non-thinkers, whether in Germany or the U.S.
Click to expand...

Oh does it? Of course, you have evidence to support this generalized claim. Or has it escaped your mind that you have allowed your personal beliefs to see causation where none exists or where there is no evidence for causation, because seeing the causation allows you to demonize the very object your personal beliefs lead you to revile.

Seems rather tenuous the POA creates “non-thinkers.” But maybe you have evidence for this causation. Otherwise, all you are doing is bloviating, giving me your world view for which there is presently no evidence to support it.
 
Vadinho said:
It is the same as refusing to bow a head and say a prayer at the dinner table or refuse to do so at an invocation. The pledge is superfluous nonsense created by whack jobs in the mid-1900s to serve a purpose that has long been discarded. I refuse to say the thing, ever. My fly fishing club was started by an ex-Marine and he started every meeting with the pledge. What the hell the pledge had to do with fly fishing is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It is indeed forced or coerced as any kid who refused to say found out pretty soon via bullying and obvious singling out by all the others in the class.
Click to expand...

Nope. First, your statment defies reality. I know many kids who refused to recite the POA in school, and there were no reprisals from the school or students. So, you can dispense with the all or nothing use of the word “any kid.”

Second, the coercion and force cannot lawfully be from the government. The context of the dialogue is government use of the POA, not private conduct regarding the use of the POA.

It is the same as refusing to bow a head and say a prayer at the dinner table or refuse to do so at an invocation.
Click to expand...

Is it? Seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges. I’m not aware of government entities/government/state actors, having a set time to daily say prayers at dinner tables during work hours for government employees. Same for your invocation reference.

The pledge is superfluous nonsense created by whack jobs in the mid-1900s to serve a purpose that has long been discarded.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the colorful commentary, which is substantively your piss and vinegar and nothing else. Thank you for your rant.

I refuse to say the thing, ever. My fly fishing club was started by an ex-Marine and he started every meeting with the pledge. What the hell the pledge had to do with fly fishing is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Then do not be a member of the damn fishing club you reference. “What the hell” you think other people have to act consistent with your personal creed “is beyond me.” If the fishing club is conducted in a manner you do not find palatable, then start your own damn fishing club.

And the fishing club is private, not the government.
 
NotreDame said:
That’s the best you have, a Strawman argument. It isn’t your “first” use of a Strawman argument either.
Click to expand...

It is not strawman to point out you argued the Constitution was not relevant, and your counter is also irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is every single founder knew of the concern of a nation leaning theocratic in any regard. It does not matter what any one of them personally believed for their own purposes, every one of them knew it was their individual choice on this matter which is why they phrased things the way they did in documents of importance. Like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Also, they leaned more community centric over any sense of 'pledge of allegiance' or 'under god' nationalism centric.
 
Mycroft said:
Is there a law that says someone has to say "under god" when reciting the Pledge?
Click to expand...
Actually, there is in California, Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin. Although, I should point out that Wisconsin changed the Pledge of Allegiance in 2014. They replaced "under God" from the Pledge with "under peace," but that is only in Wisconsin. Both Florida and Texas will allow a student to opt out of reciting the Pledge, providing the student can get approval from either a parent or guardian.

Wisconsin School Changes Pledge of Allegiance

townhall.com townhall.com
 
george48 said:
My question, to a secular republi is why?
Click to expand...

The short answer is Americans were tired of war.

Screaming "dictator" in crowded theaters on movie news reels didn't get the knee-jerk reaction the US government wanted.

So, the US government changed tactics and started screaming "godless commies." That got the knee-jerk reaction the US government wanted.

Then, of course, it was necessary to add a litmus test, so "under god" was added to the Pledge under the misguided belief that godless commies would be afraid of melting into a puddle of water should they utter "under god."
 
george48 said:
My question, to a secular republi is why?

I love the pledge...(I pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, one Nation under....

But notice how it sais "under god"

How about your countries promise to have a seperation of Church and State as Jefferson wrote to bapitsts conetticut
Click to expand...
Under God was added because America was so afraid of those godless Soviets in the 1950's. Say the pledge without that phrase, it sounds better. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
mrjurrs said:
Under God was added because America was so afraid of those godless Soviets in the 1950's. Say the pledge without that phrase, it sounds better. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...
That sounds amlmost perfect to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom