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?
Is the Plege of Allegiance still valid?
Moderator: Moderators
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #31
No, are you a member of the communist party?help3434 wrote:bluethread wrote:
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?
I never said that all of those people were trying to indoctrinate people into accepting central planning. I was saying that was how the progressives used it. That fact that others accepted it for other reasons just made it easier to sell. If that is not the case, why are progressives, who used to support it, now opposing it. Are you saying that the pledge is anything other than a tool of indoctrination? If it is, please provide that alternative purpose.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #33
The pledge was composed by Francis Bellamy, an avowed socialist, in 1892. Though the DAR added "God" to their version of the pledge in 1906, it was adopted without a reference to "God" in 1942. In direct response to your question, Louis Charles Rabaut, a supporter of the progressive policy of price controls, submitted a resolution for the words "under God" to be added in 1953. Admittedly, there were a lot of hands involve in the amending of the pledge in 1954 to include "under God" and capitalizing the word Nation, by the way. However, IMO the purpose of the pledge was to support the concept of a centralized government and advance the progressive agenda. The inclusion of "God" in the nationally recognize version was an afterthought, that was only added after constituent pressure. The incident with Eisenhower makes for good press and maybe helped put it over the top. However, at the turn of 20th century, progressivism and theism were not exclusive by any means. In fact, many modern progressives, like Nancy Pelosi, have no problem invoking the Scriptures, if it furthers their agenda. That said, theism is not as useful in pushing the progressive agenda anymore. So, that is why I think that the phrase "under God" now being actively opposed by the progressives. In fact, the globalist progressives are even opposing the pledge altogether. It appears that even that has worn out it's usefulness.
Post #34
[Replying to post 33 by bluethread]
How many American classrooms no longer say the Pledge? How many municipalities when opening their meetings no longer say the Pledge? How many service
organizations, boy scouts, girl scouts, military conclaves and meetings no longer say the Pledge?
Yeah, the Pledge should be disposed of in its present form -- for good reason. It is really a lie that this nation is presently "indivisible."
Really!
So, that is why I think that the phrase "under God" now being actively opposed by the progressives. In fact, the globalist progressives are even opposing the pledge altogether. It appears that even that has worn out it's usefulness.
How many American classrooms no longer say the Pledge? How many municipalities when opening their meetings no longer say the Pledge? How many service
organizations, boy scouts, girl scouts, military conclaves and meetings no longer say the Pledge?
Yeah, the Pledge should be disposed of in its present form -- for good reason. It is really a lie that this nation is presently "indivisible."
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #35
I didn't say that it is not recited. I said that modern progressives oppose the phrase "under god" and globalist progressives oppose the pledge altogether. Personally, I also oppose the pledge, but for different reasons, primarily because I am a localist and do not support the concept of big government.2Dbunk wrote: [Replying to post 33 by bluethread]
Really!
So, that is why I think that the phrase "under God" now being actively opposed by the progressives. In fact, the globalist progressives are even opposing the pledge altogether. It appears that even that has worn out it's usefulness.
How many American classrooms no longer say the Pledge? How many municipalities when opening their meetings no longer say the Pledge? How many service
organizations, boy scouts, girl scouts, military conclaves and meetings no longer say the Pledge?
Yeah, the Pledge should be disposed of in its present form -- for good reason. It is really a lie that this nation is presently "indivisible."
Post #36
[Replying to post 33 by bluethread]
If I was correct in assuming the above, I feel exonerated for what I said in my previous post. If I was incorrect, you need to clarify what you mean by that rather confusing sentence.
RPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-One can never have enough faith
-Islam is ALL that a religion can be
-If evolution is "just a theory," then religion is just an opinion!
Sorry if I interpreted the above sentence wrongly. I should have asked for clarification because I interpreted the second "that" to be the Pledge "has worn out it's (sic) usefulness."It appears that even that has worn out it's usefulness.
If I was correct in assuming the above, I feel exonerated for what I said in my previous post. If I was incorrect, you need to clarify what you mean by that rather confusing sentence.
RPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-One can never have enough faith
-Islam is ALL that a religion can be
-If evolution is "just a theory," then religion is just an opinion!
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #37
It appears to me that the pledge has warn out its usefulness to the progressives, who I believe have used it to further their big government agenda.2Dbunk wrote: [Replying to post 33 by bluethread]
Sorry if I interpreted the above sentence wrongly. I should have asked for clarification because I interpreted the second "that" to be the Pledge "has worn out it's (sic) usefulness."It appears that even that has worn out it's usefulness.
If I was correct in assuming the above, I feel exonerated for what I said in my previous post. If I was incorrect, you need to clarify what you mean by that rather confusing sentence.
