Is the Plege of Allegiance still valid?

[2Dbunk]

Probably, many of you viewing this suggested topic will scoff at its importance because the courts have ruled the pledge of allegiance is no longer mandatory observance. However it is still a powerful pronouncement in many public and private schools, and other public and military events. I bring it up because of what influence its text says to our children and the unthinking.

Does the 1954 Inclusion “under god� in the Pledge of Allegiance define America as divisible rather than “indivisible� as the pledge states?

[corey.1217]

Do we need a mistaken use of words in our national creed to needlessly drive us farther away from each other? I think not !!

Do we need needless words in The Pledge of Allegiance? Of course not. It's time to trash "under god."

It is time to trash gay marriage. It is time to trash Roe V. Wade. It is time to trash interracial marriage. Doesn't make much sense does it?

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

As I have stated, the whole idea of a pledge was a socialist idea and has been manipulate as a propaganda tool by the left ever since.

Some say that patriotism was approaching low ebb in 1892 – that’s why the Pledge of Allegiance was welcomed, implemented. To say that it was socialism is a stretch; I don’t think Bellamy’s politics entered into it. If so, what was socialistic about the Spanish–American war that came on its heels? That war was all about protecting American interests (capitalism). Throughout the early part of the 20th century, socialism played third fiddle – even to this day the Pledge is recited by many people who are against socialism.

Of course, today the Pledge is recited as rote – without very much thought given. It’s the “right� thing to do to show unquestioning reverence to America.

Well, if you could provide what you consider to be the signs of that ebb, I can probably address my point more directly to you view. That said, I surmise that this ebb in "patriotism" was really a continuation of the federalist debate, which limited central control in the 18th century to the national defense and resolution of interstate conflicts. The civil war, or war between the states, depending on one's position on the issue, was the result of festering tension between the two opposing views of state sovereignty and an overarching central government.

After the civil war, the view of republican carpetbaggers as an occupying force in the south, combined with frontier populism in the west, were indeed undermining the unionist sentiment in the north. Therefore, it appears to me, that in order to gain control after the weak Presidents of the late 19th century the socialist progressives, led by Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson, grabbed power by playing to both populism and the fear of anarchy at the same time. This then shifted these Untied States from a federalist democratic republic to a centralized socialist government over the following hundred years. The pledge is just one of the tools used to achieve that goal and is now of little use to the progressives, so it is being jettisoned.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

After the civil war, the view of republican carpetbaggers as an occupying force in the south, combined with frontier populism in the west, were indeed undermining the unionist sentiment in the north. Therefore, it appears to me, that in order to gain control after the weak Presidents of the late 19th century the socialist progressives, led by Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson, grabbed power by playing to both populism and the fear of anarchy at the same time. This then shifted these Untied States from a federalist democratic republic to a centralized socialist government over the following hundred years. The pledge is just one of the tools used to achieve that goal and is now of little use to the progressives, so it is being jettisoned.

Teddy Roosevelt took office in 1901, Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 -- Bellamy's Pledge was in 1892. Are you saying Grover Cleveland and William McKinley were socialistic? No, of course not or you would have mentioned them as so. Nine years elapsed before Theodore's presidency and another four years before any inkling of his socialistic reforms were evident.

I maintain what I said earlier: I don't think Bellamy's political views, such as they were, entered into his Pledge of Allegiance. If they did, it is not apparent in the words of the Pledge.

AND I CHALLENGE the two negative votes in the poll to come forward and defend their vote, in debate, or are they too keyboard-stricken to express a coherent argument, or too hide-bound like the poster that wants to trash Roe v. Wade and gay marriage?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

After the civil war, the view of republican carpetbaggers as an occupying force in the south, combined with frontier populism in the west, were indeed undermining the unionist sentiment in the north. Therefore, it appears to me, that in order to gain control after the weak Presidents of the late 19th century the socialist progressives, led by Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson, grabbed power by playing to both populism and the fear of anarchy at the same time. This then shifted these Untied States from a federalist democratic republic to a centralized socialist government over the following hundred years. The pledge is just one of the tools used to achieve that goal and is now of little use to the progressives, so it is being jettisoned.

Teddy Roosevelt took office in 1901, Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 -- Bellamy's Pledge was in 1892. Are you saying Grover Cleveland and William McKinley were socialistic? No, of course not or you would have mentioned them as so. Nine years elapsed before Theodore's presidency and another four years before any inkling of his socialistic reforms were evident.

I maintain what I said earlier: I don't think Bellamy's political views, such as they were, entered into his Pledge of Allegiance. If they did, it is not apparent in the words of the Pledge.

AND I CHALLENGE the two negative votes in the poll to come forward and defend their vote, in debate, or are they too keyboard-stricken to express a coherent argument, or too hide-bound like the poster that wants to trash Roe v. Wade and gay marriage?

He wrote the pledge in 1892, but it was not adopted until 1942. As I stated, Grover Cleveland and William McKinley were in the line of weak post-bellum presidents, who permitted the unionist republicans to increase federal power. Cleveland, who opposed unionist cronyism, was eventually able to build a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to combat this. However, the market crash of 1893 destroyed the more federalist Democrat party, in the 1894 Republican landslide. This opened the way for the progressives to gain a foothold, in both parties, in the political realignment. Though McKinley was not as aggressive a Roosevelt, he did not oppose the progressives centralizing power in support of their agenda. Now even if Bellamy was not using the pledge to push his socialist views, which seems antithetical to the idea of holding political views IMO, the progressives used it along with other tools, ie populism, globalism and fascism, to promote their socialist views via centralized planning.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to bluethread]

So, Is that a yes vote or a no vote? And, have you voted? Otherwise, bluethread, I think we are at an impasse. I don't see the point of your argument, nor the politicization of the Pledge.

RPS
__________________________________________________

Theology: That science which treats the unknowable with infinitesimal exactness. -Anatole France

Islam is ALL that a religion can be. –y.t.

If evolution is "just a theory," then religion is just an opinion. –y.t.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

So, Is that a yes vote or a no vote? And, have you voted? Otherwise, bluethread, I think we are at an impasse. I don't see the point of your argument, nor the politicization of the Pledge.

RPS

Well, if I must say yes or no, I would have to say no. That is because I think the use of the phrase "under god" was added to sell the "one nation" concept. In order to get the "god and country" types to buy into the concept of centralizes planning, it was necessary to add "god" to the mix. As I said, now that the "one nation" concept is practically a fate accompli, the progressives are seeking to jettison "under god" to marginalize the "god and country" types, because they are interfering with their agenda. Regarding politicization of the Pledge, that is what the pledge is. Politics is the art/science of establishing public policy. Therefore, the establishment of the pledge is politics and whether it encourages or discourages the concept of "one nation" is also politics.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 26 by bluethread]

2Dbunk wrote:


[Replying to bluethread]

So, Is that a yes vote or a no vote? And, have you voted? Otherwise, bluethread, I think we are at an impasse. I don't see the point of your argument, nor the politicization of the Pledge.

RPS


Well, if I must say yes or no, I would have to say no. That is because I think the use of the phrase "under god" was added to sell the "one nation" concept. In order to get the "god and country" types to buy into the concept of centralizes planning, it was necessary to add "god" to the mix. As I said, now that the "one nation" concept is practically a fate accompli, the progressives are seeking to jettison "under god" to marginalize the "god and country" types, because they are interfering with their agenda. Regarding politicization of the Pledge, that is what the pledge is. Politics is the art/science of establishing public policy. Therefore, the establishment of the pledge is politics and whether it encourages or discourages the concept of "one nation" is also politics.

By voting no you are not recognizing the fact that six others voted “yes� thus defeating your argument. Obviously the Pledge today is divisive or those six others would have agreed with you.

You may call the ORIGINAL Pledge politics, but at the very most it was innocuous politics – more like American patriotism. Even Republicans and Democrats – hate each other as they do – both claim to be Americans. For politics to have impetus it must first have a bias, and today's Pledge has a bias.

[JoeyKnothead]

"Under God."

Not that God of your'n' but that God of mine!

That one goofy bit of declaring for me what I believe is why I'll never honor any of these pledges, and why I will never stand when they do that song thing at events.

Where my nation has, through force of law deigned to declare my beliefs, I'll endeavor to poke that government in the eye, or even less accommodating places.

Upon entering the Army, I pledged to uphold the Constitution, not some religious busybody's interpretation of it.

[bluethread]

By voting no you are not recognizing the fact that six others voted “yes� thus defeating your argument. Obviously the Pledge today is divisive or those six others would have agreed with you.

What do the votes of others in that ad hoc survey have to do with anything? Can you think of anything regarding public policy that is not opposed by at least six people. You require that a question be answered yes or no, then summarily dismiss the choice. I reluctantly gave you a "no", not because I believed that ther was absolutely no validity to the pledge, but because you insisted on a yes or no answer.

You may call the ORIGINAL Pledge politics, but at the very most it was innocuous politics – more like American patriotism. Even Republicans and Democrats – hate each other as they do – both claim to be Americans. For politics to have impetus it must first have a bias, and today's Pledge has a bias.

I am not buying into your inflexable framing of the issue. Politics is about how one establishes public policy. If one is talking about conflicts and agreements between Republicans and Democrats, that is partisan politiics. Partisanship is not necessary in politics. The only thing nessesary for politics to be effective is general public acceptance, or what I call the benign consent of the masses. Of course, politics has bias. If it didn't, any given set of public policies would be just an arbitrary set of rules. It is not. It is the sum total of the effect of social forces in that given society.

Now, with regard to the pledge, it is nothing more or less than a tool to those ends. I have explained to you, in detail, how I believes that the Progressives have used it to advance their agenda over the last 125 yrs or so. If you wish to discuss those details, I am willing to have that discussion. However. I am not going to waste my time defending a forced yes or no answer to a poorly designed survey question.

[help3434]

Well, if I must say yes or no, I would have to say no. That is because I think the use of the phrase "under god" was added to sell the "one nation" concept. In order to get the "god and country" types to buy into the concept of centralizes planning, it was necessary to add "god" to the mix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of ... der_God.22

So Louis Albert Bowman, the chaplain of the Sons of the American Revolution; the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, Representative Louis C. Rabaut, Pastor George MacPherson Docherty, Representative Charles Oakman, and President Eisenhower wanted to indoctrinate people into accepting central planning? Are you a member of the John Birch society?