Pledge of allegiance

**Big & Tall** · 03-03-2003 01:03 PM

This is absurd:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pl...eut/index.html

They have banned the pledge of allegiance. I quit. Anybody want to find a new country?

**Gyno Rhino** · 03-03-2003 01:08 PM

It's California. That's not really part of the U.S., anyway.

**Isaac Wilkins** · 03-03-2003 01:12 PM

Can't the whiny hippies come up with something better to do?

**hemants** · 03-03-2003 01:15 PM

Well, to put it in perspective, if you saw video footage of a class full of Muslim children in Iran chanting "one nation under Allah" it wouldn't exactly conjure images of a country that prides itself on freedom and democracy now would it?

"Anybody want to find a new country?"

I'm sure they still recite pledges in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan if you really want.

**Sledgehammer** · 03-03-2003 01:16 PM

N Korea says it can hit California with a Nuke......

**RisingPhoenix** · 03-03-2003 01:58 PM

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by the knights of columbus, i believe.

i've never cared and I always said the pledge when I had to... I can understand why someone would object to it, though.

take those two words out of it and its no thing.

**Saint Patrick** · 03-03-2003 02:52 PM

I think it would be just as effective if they said "One nation, Indivisible". Removing 2 words doesn't negate the rest of it.

**hemants** · 03-03-2003 03:05 PM

Although people are in a tuss about "under god" I'm not a big fan of children standing and chanting anything. Seems somewhat cultish if you ask me.

**kimpy225** · 03-03-2003 03:27 PM

no one i know looks to the flag and really means what they say
its just a saying
its just something we have always been told to do.
people talk during the moment of silence
teachers see it as a chore that we have to do.
every teacher i had during the pledge didnt like it
when i had gym class first period, we never even acknowledged that we were supposed to do it
i dont think it has the same meaning if you say it every day
because then when you need to really say it.. you are tired of it
but thats just me and what i see

**Shankerr** · 03-03-2003 03:42 PM

Whats the big deal? Why not just either stop saying it if you don't want to say it... Keep saying it if you do... Or remove the two words..??..?? What the hell is the pledge of allegiance anyway?

**GIS** · 03-03-2003 03:43 PM

I'm all for not making studence recite it, and if they wish to restructure the words that would be the best approach to the situation.

I personally felt uncomfortable every time I had to say 'and under god' because I've always had an agnostic viewpoint.

**Berserker** · 03-03-2003 04:46 PM

Under god was added in the 50s part of Mcarthism, to show the godless commies something. I beleive it should be taken out and spoke in its orginal context. Get back to what this country was founded on. Most people don't even know it was added and would throw a fit.

**Shane** · 03-03-2003 06:59 PM

I agree with Berserker. It's not a big deal either way to me but it is a violation of church and state. But then again I live in California so I must be a hippy so what do I know.

**MrWebb78** · 03-03-2003 07:20 PM

the first sentence is the only part that i ever meant or cared about anyways. 'i pleadge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america'. just about all that should be said. im an atheist, i have no loyalties to a god, so saying it didnt upset me, but it never meant anything to me.

however i agree as a californian that we should become our own country, either way id like to leave it asap.

one last arguement though, this country was founded on those principles, so if someone has a problem with their child saying "under god", then thats why they have private schools.

**RisingPhoenix** · 03-03-2003 07:27 PM

"however i agree as a californian that we should become our own country, either way id like to leave it asap."

Are you joking?

**smalls** · 03-03-2003 07:42 PM

I guess I am not a hippy, cuz I always felt proud when saying it.

**Avatar** · 03-03-2003 09:12 PM

what is reciting the pledge of allegiance supposed to accomplish?

**body** · 03-04-2003 04:37 AM

beat up a hippie, it teach them a lesson.

**Praetorian** · 03-04-2003 06:17 AM

i really dont see a problem with the pledge

**Berserker** · 03-04-2003 09:50 AM

For the younger member when was the last time in school you said it? For me it was kindergarden, end of 70s.

**K-Daddy** · 03-04-2003 10:04 AM

I think it's very stupid to ban it, but I don't say the pledge anyway. The pledge was written by a socialist and has socialist undertones. "Indivisible?" Hell no; we're not an indivisible nation. The South proved that by seceding from the Union. Now, when Bellamy wrote the Pledge, he added that because the "Union" had been reformed. To say our nation is "indivisible" is like saying that the federal government will not tolerate any people under its power that choose to go a different way (or even secede). Making such a claim as the country being indivisible is very arrogantly socialist. But not all people have a problem with socialism.

Way too much liberalism though. I've very surprised that Massachusetts wasn't one of those nine states.

**Avatar** · 03-04-2003 10:20 AM

Originally posted by K-Daddy
I think it's very stupid to ban it, but I don't say the pledge anyway. The pledge was written by a socialist and has socialist undertones. "Indivisible?" Hell no; we're not an indivisible nation. The South proved that by seceding from the Union. Now, when Bellamy wrote the Pledge, he added that because the "Union" had been reformed. To say our nation is "indivisible" is like saying that the federal government will not tolerate any people under its power that choose to go a different way (or even secede). Making such a claim as the country being indivisible is very arrogantly socialist. But not all people have a problem with socialism.

Way too much liberalism though. I've very surprised that Massachusetts wasn't one of those nine states.

whats wrong with saying a nation is indivisible? couldn't that mean the nation would stick together throughout a war? Kinda the same way a sports team would consider itself indivisible?

**Sayiajin Prince** · 03-04-2003 10:25 AM

wuts the big deal, if u got something against "undergod" u dont have to say it.

**Berserker** · 03-04-2003 12:42 PM

Originally posted by K-Daddy
I think it's very stupid to ban it, but I don't say the pledge anyway. The pledge was written by a socialist and has socialist undertones. "Indivisible?" Hell no; we're not an indivisible nation. The South proved that by seceding from the Union. Now, when Bellamy wrote the Pledge, he added that because the "Union" had been reformed. To say our nation is "indivisible" is like saying that the federal government will not tolerate any people under its power that choose to go a different way (or even secede). Making such a claim as the country being indivisible is very arrogantly socialist. But not all people have a problem with socialism.

Way too much liberalism though. I've very surprised that Massachusetts wasn't one of those nine states.

Thats a differant way to look at it.

**Prolapse** · 03-04-2003 12:59 PM

"wuts the big deal, if u got something against "undergod" u dont have to say it"

The Pledge, as I understand it (being a Canuck and all), is meant to represent the ideals of the entire nation. It is meant to be all inclusive, but with the term "Under God", you exclude a substantial portion of your population.

Imagine having the term "with no God" in its place. Do you think Christians, Muslims, or any religious group would be fine with just not saying that part? Of course not, they'd be outraged, and justifiably so - just as some atheists are by the "under God" statement.

Thread: Pledge of allegiance

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Pledge of allegiance

Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions