You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
It just gets better! Note that "under god" was added to placate the catholic knights of colombus. I just can not stop myself. JSH would be proud
By the way....I got to study the constituon A LOT in law school, as did spider. I do not think we are trying to come off arrogant here. My intent is simply to post info that the media does not focus on, and most here would not know.
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
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.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: '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, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
Now again, I am not attacking anyone here. I am simply posting the history of the issues, which do of course have a tad of politics in it. but this is not a RIght/left or "chirtian/jew" issue. It is a constitutional law issue. which is not, at least last time I looked, on the "bad" list.
Of course, like all things, that is open to interpretation I guess.
i don't think anybody is going to read it though. it's blinding!
And that is the problem. If we do not know the facts, how can we make an informed decision? We can not. which is why media controll and biase is so important.
I know, but you need to know the facts before you can make a decision. That is why I post this stuff.
In my mind, the constitution is the finest document ever produced by man. It defines the USA in a way that no nation ever has been before. It is the well spring of all that makes us great. It must remain as "pure" as possible, with the major mistakes that were made (and there were really only two..slaves and women issues) corrected.
The entire concept of our country is an example, and perhaps the finest example, of the nobility that rests in every person.
Btw, for those that merely throw out the words.. "leave the country, get out of here then.," the lawsuit is about the words "Under God." A Christian God. Would you be offended if you were told to go to work, and everyday your boss and everyone was Chanting Praise Allah... and you could easily just stand there and do nothing and not say the words. But the fact is everyone around you is chanting Praise Allah. It is legal to NOT recite it... but hearing Under God "could" offend people that don't believe in God.
Personally I'm an agnostic, and I don't really care if I say "Under God" or not... because I'm sure there are other gods out there. But for this guy and many others like him, it's the belief that's forced upon him that's troubling.
Btw, The Pledge of Allegiance did not have the "Under God" part in the beginning...
"In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and echoes the Declaration of Independence. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change."
If that did happen, I would take it in stride. I can't say I understand these people that getting offended by everything. What a shitty way to go thru life, to always be mad about somebody else doing something.
People need to grow up
__________________
"RX-8Club.com - where everyone builds like Engman and drives like Senna"
RedDevil
If that did happen, I would take it in stride. I can't say I understand these people that getting offended by everything. What a shitty way to go thru life, to always be mad about somebody else doing something.
People need to grow up
But the point is that there are people who do that both ways. how dare you have contraception..how dare you have an abortion...how dare you do anything that I do not like.
I'm sure we wouldnt miss them if they decided to move to another country more to their liking, like say maybe Saudi Arabia or the Peoples Republic of Georgia in the former USSR
Now this certainly is a perfect phrasing for the American way in 2005--Affirm God, or leave the country.
I ask again, why is it so important to some to force others to affirm a belief in God? How does that help your beliefs, or the other person? Are your beliefs so weak that they require coerced affirmations by all around you to validate your beliefs? If not, what is gained by such coercion?
Why not follow the great tradition of this country in allowing each person to worship in his or her own way, and at his or her own time? What is accomplished by forcing a creed on people?
I don't even wonder how those who decry this ruling would feel if they were forced each day to affirm a belief in Jupiter.
This is still a country of law, not men. The bedrock of that law is the Constitution, as fine a document as has ever been written for affirming the rights of men. This case is a case based on constitutional law. Even assuming that there is some good reason for forcing a religious creed on people, how is such a practice consistent with the establishment clause of the Constitution?
Btw, for those that merely throw out the words.. "leave the country, get out of here then.," the lawsuit is about the words "Under God." A Christian God. Would you be offended if you were told to go to work, and everyday your boss and everyone was Chanting Praise Allah... and you could easily just stand there and do nothing and not say the words. But the fact is everyone around you is chanting Praise Allah. It is legal to NOT recite it... but hearing Under God "could" offend people that don't believe in God.
Personally I'm an agnostic, and I don't really care if I say "Under God" or not... because I'm sure there are other gods out there. But for this guy and many others like him, it's the belief that's forced upon him that's troubling.
Wrong...
FYI, Muslims also call Allah, God. Buddhism, Zionism and even Animism also use the word "God". People in the United States tend to associate the word "God" with the Christian God. As long as one believes in a Creator then the words "under God" should not be offensive. However, the issue is about somebody who is a complete atheist, how do you deal with it?
... "Under God" was only added to the pledge in 1954, in the height of the "red scare" days, as a kind of litmus test. It was intended as a religious affirmation, obviously, and can be interpreted only as a religious affirmation, in violation of the constitution.
Let folks affirm their belief in God each in his own way, and each at his own time. Why coerce people into either affirming a belief he doesn't feel, or having to stand out by not doing so? What does this accomplish?
In general I would agree. Go back to the old version of the pledge and be done with it. But at the same time I wish the courts could at least occasionally say "Getting freakin' real! The kids don't pay attention to what they're saying anyway!"
2005 6 Spd GT - Titanium Grey - Front Air Dam - Front/Rear Accents - Black Leather - Nav System - LoJack Early Warning
Mods: Tokico D-Spec shocks, Hawk Performance Ceramic pads, Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 225/40-18, Mazdaspeed front shock tower brace, CG-Lock, Clear corners, Strakes, Racing Beat Oil/AC screens, Zeta console and knee pads.
This ruling shows how one can graduate law school, work as an attorney, and even become a judge allthewhile being 'an idiot'.
(sigh)....Oh well...this judge will get slapped back into place, I'm sure, by 'reasonable' people.
Actually you didn't read the law article on this... he actually did go to law school, learned the correct words of the law, and used it to dictate this case.
Now this certainly is a perfect phrasing for the American way in 2005--Affirm God, or leave the country.
I ask again, why is it so important to some to force others to affirm a belief in God? How does that help your beliefs, or the other person? Are your beliefs so weak that they require coerced affirmations by all around you to validate your beliefs? If not, what is gained by such coercion?
Why not follow the great tradition of this country in allowing each person to worship in his or her own way, and at his or her own time? What is accomplished by forcing a creed on people?
I don't even wonder how those who decry this ruling would feel if they were forced each day to affirm a belief in Jupiter.
This is still a country of law, not men. The bedrock of that law is the Constitution, as fine a document as has ever been written for affirming the rights of men. This case is a case based on constitutional law. Even assuming that there is some good reason for forcing a religious creed on people, how is such a practice consistent with the establishment clause of the Constitution?
I fail to see your point. I was referring to the my opinion that people who have such a huge problem with the way that the Pledge is worded must have very shallow lives and worry about a lot of other things that they have no hope of changing.
Far from your idea that I would encourage them to leave the country, I'm a big fan of "grant me the strength to change the things I can change, the patience to endure the ones I cannot, and the intelligent to know the difference"
In general I would agree. Go back to the old version of the pledge and be done with it. But at the same time I wish the courts could at least occasionally say "Getting freakin' real! The kids don't pay attention to what they're saying anyway!"
Yeah, as I said, I wish this litigation had never been brought. It just gets people's panties in a bunch, however it comes out, and it's not a very important issue in the context of so many more important issues. However, it was brought, and this is the appropriate result under our constitution--Let each person worship according to his or her own beliefs.
That is my point. If church and state were truely separate, and the state wasn't founded on the "church," <snip>
Actually they are separate, by design, and the US was not founded on the church:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
2005 6 Spd GT - Titanium Grey - Front Air Dam - Front/Rear Accents - Black Leather - Nav System - LoJack Early Warning
Mods: Tokico D-Spec shocks, Hawk Performance Ceramic pads, Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 225/40-18, Mazdaspeed front shock tower brace, CG-Lock, Clear corners, Strakes, Racing Beat Oil/AC screens, Zeta console and knee pads.
I fail to see your point. I was referring to the my opinion that people who have such a huge problem with the way that the Pledge is worded must have very shallow lives and worry about a lot of other things that they have no hope of changing.
That is, of course, your opinion. It is at least as likely that they have very deep beliefs, which are violated each time they or their children are forced to recite the pledge of allegiance.
Quote:
Far from your idea that I would encourage them to leave the country, I'm a big fan of "grant me the strength to change the things I can change, the patience to endure the ones I cannot, and the intelligent to know the difference"
Well, they probably are, too. They felt that they could change this, and it seems that they are right.
Personally, those words in the pledge are not how I would spend my time and money, but it's not a very important issue to me. It obviously was to them.
FYI, Muslims also call Allah, God. Buddhism, Zionism and even Animism also use the word "God". People in the United States tend to associate the word "God" with the Christian God. As long as one believes in a Creator then the words "under God" should not be offensive. However, the issue is about somebody who is a complete atheist, how do you deal with it?
I'm not saying that people don't refer to Allah as God.. but that they say "Praise Allah.." Not "Praise God." Go to any Mosque and you'll hear this. In Buddhism, my family refers to each deity as individual gods... but also as a whole, a complete unity of Gods.
Notice the article mentioning the Christian Right brining out the Appeals? There will be people just like them that only refer to the "Under God" part as a Christian God. You should go to any school here in the US and ask them to recite the Pledge.. then ask them what the "God" represent. I bet you most of them would say Jesus Christ. Ask any Muslim kid which God are they referring to.. they'll say Jesus Christ. Ask any child with any other beliefs, they'll say Jesus Christ.
[QUOTE=124Spider]That is, of course, your opinion. It is at least as likely that they have very deep beliefs, which are violated each time they or their children are forced to recite the pledge of allegiance.
[quote=124spider]
Where exactly are the gulags in American that force you to recite the pledge of allegiance? I must have missed those.....
Linear Mode
