Posted on 06/16/2011 12:46:14 PM PDT by NYer
Yours is the first comment that is well thought out. The Pledge did not exist as an official Pledge until 1942. It is clearly an oath to be a drone who gets indoctrinated by the government.
Since they’ve ruled on this, they should stop taking cases involving this man. He’s becoming a nuisance, and he wastes their time and our money with his stupidity, for his own selfish motives.
Yea the Irony is I would gladly pledge my Allegiance to God, and it is an unavoidable fact that every nation of the world is under God.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong to make little kids Pledge their Allegiance to any goverment. A free Government requires a free people who not only keep that Government on its toes but most importantly of all recognized that this goverment exist not for its own sake but for their sake.
No human Government will ever deserve unwavering Allegiance, No free goverment ever can have such allegiance if it expects to remain free.
For that reason alone I think the Pledge needs to go.
First of all, talk about something that is ABSOLUTELY UNenforceable.
Every time this jerk pushes this, I envision hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Americans packing every school parking lot, stadium etc. for the privilege of shouting out the phrase “under God” in the pledge.
Well, that's one way to look at it, I suppose.
On the other hand, to me, the Pledge is "to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands," the one nation — the American nation (that is, We the People) — which the DoI recognizes as a nation "under God."
Note to recognize a nation "under God" is to say that our unalienable rights are not grants of the government, but of the God Who created all men equal.
It is in no sense a pledge of fidelity — a "loyalty oath" — to the federal government.
Governments change. The values that made and make America a good and just and strong nation do not. To say the Pledge is to remind oneself of that fact.
Just my two cents' worth.
To be honest that is a way to look at it, but it is not the way the pledge was intended by the devout socialist who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
If I were to alter the pledge I would remove the words “one nation”, “indivisible”, and replace the word “the” with “theses”. I would also replace the word “flag” with the word “Constitution” and the word “for” with the word “over”.
If there must be a pledge at all to the Federal Government it should look like this:
“I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of these United States of America, and to the republic over which it stands under God, with liberty and justice for all.”
I like it, Monorprise! That is, it mentions the Constitution — which is arguably a less ambiguous concept than the Flag.
But it isn't the Pledge we have. (I'm always glad to recite the one we have, including the "indivisible" language....)
One minor quibble: The Constitution doesn't "stand over" the republic; it is the bedrock foundation of it.
I gather the socialist who wrote the Pledge was not the person who inserted the "under God" language — which IIRC came later (during the Eisenhower administration???).
Thanks so much for writing, Monorprise!
You are correct the socialist who wrote the pledge, a man by the name of Francis Julius Bellamy. Did not include “under God”. The phrase under God got added to the pledge in the 1950’s as a means to help distinguish us from the Soviet Union.
LOLOL!!! Well, they sure picked exactly the right phrase to do that!
Eventually, totalitarians are always shipwrecked in wrack and ruin on the rocks of their own prescribed yet fallacious ideology.... At least, that is the report of actual human history, so far.
"Under God" marks the territory of human liberty. Man has no liberty where God is expunged from sociopolitical questions. With God gone, there is only the State (i.e., "the federal government") to mete out our "human rights."
And the State will tell us what they are.
A warning: What the State can grant, it can rescind. If this were the actual case, human "rights" would be total fictions.
Where "man is the measure," humanity shrinks.
That's why the Framers insisted on a rule of law, not of men; and that rule of law is "guaranteed" by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe (Ben Franklin's term, IIRC).
In other words, we are a nation under God. This is what has always made America "exceptional."
May God ever bless America!
And you also, Monorprise!
And the State will tell us what they are.
A warning: What the State can grant, it can rescind. If this were the actual case, human "rights" would be total fictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.