ONE NATION UNDER GOD

American history | November 4, 2015 | knarf with D.D.Eisenhower

[knarf]

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.

[knarf]

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

It was first published in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892, in the following form:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."

The words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for "my Flag" in 1924, and the pledge was officially recognized by the U.S. government in 1942.

In 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that "under God" be added, making the pledge read:

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.

I left the good part for last;

THERE IS NO COMMA BETWEEN THE WORDS "NATION" AND "UNDER"

EVERY child is taught (myself included) to pause betweeen those two words, but the fact is ...

We are one nation under God

Not one nation (pause) under God

[HiTech RedNeck]

probably would be better theology to put the pause in there (it’s all under God)

[Guenevere]

BTTT

[Arthur McGowan]

The Pledge is objectionable because of the word “indivisible.”

The Declaration lists, among the “self-evident” truths, that the People have the right to “alter or abolish” oppressive or abusive government. This means that the People have the unalienable right to secede from the Union if the federal government becomes abusive or oppressive.

The description of the “nation” or “republic” as “indivisible” is a direct repudiation of the Declaration of Independence.

[knarf]

Well, I certainly hadn't expected THAT

[knarf]

After thinking about it a bit, Under the Eisenhower administration, we (re) united as a nation following WW2 and we were the big dog on the block

The 50's are what most people still alive from then, remember as the most prosperous times in the 20th century

We paved the nation that you may NOW drive from Boston to Sacramento ... and eat and sleep along the way (remember HoJo's?)

I think it is altogether fitting that the psychology of the included words, "under God" be part of our American psyche

You're point, though valid, is an apples and oranges comparison

imo

[Arthur McGowan]

The words “under God” were added to the Pledge in response to a petition drive run by the Knights of Columbus. No problem with that.

The word “indivisible” should be stricken from the Pledge.

[knarf]

Commies already believe they've accomplished that in the hearts of Americans and like true 'victors' ... the words the vanquished speak is of no concern to them ...

Is THAT how you want it ?

[imardmd1]

Having been required to invoke this in first grade (no kindergarten) in 1942, the formula was ". . . one nation indivisible (pause for comma) with liberty and justice for all."

Since the clause "under God" was inserted between "nation" and "indivisible" I see no reason to shift the comma and thus destroy the integrity of the codification. By my reckoning then, It should be pronounced as follows:

". . . one nation under God indivisible (pause for comma to separate substantive clauses) with liberty and justice for all."

And that is the way I recite it now, whatever others presume to do. To me this has the sense that under God the nation is indivisible, but without the trustworthy God as superintendent and acknowledged unifying theme, our integrity will be lost through a cracked and broken foundation resulting from the disagreement of how, what, by Whom, and for which our rules of conduct are constituted.

[knarf]

I like that, and will meditate on it

I have, of late, become interested in not only what we say, but HOW we say it

What sparked this interest was a verse of scripture I've read many times, but I never "saw" before ...

Luke 8:18 ..... (KJV)

18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

... and since reading that, my attention to language has been sharpenned

[MD Expat in PA]

Some interesting background on the Pledge of Allegiance (or why as constitutional conservative, a federalist and opposed to statism, fascism and socialism in all forms, I am not a big fan and no longer make the "pledge"):

The Pledge of Allegiance, as it exists in its current form, was originally composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898)

The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism in students and sell flags to public schools.

The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

Pledge of Allegiance

Francis Bellamy

Objection that the Pledge promotes a socialist state

Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge, was a former Baptist minister who preached that Jesus was a socialist. He was allied ideologically with his cousin, Edward Bellamy, one of the most renowned socialists of the late 19th century. Strongly opposed to capitalism, Francis advocated income taxation, central banking, nationalized education, nationalization of industry, and other tenets of socialism. A primary objective of his was to replace the existing federalist view of the country (where states are sovereign) in the public's mind with a nationalist one that would open the way to creating a centralized government.

When provided the opportunity to write a pledge to the American flag in a campaign to sell flags to public schools, Bellamy turned to the words and principles of socialism. Put simply, if American youth could to be taught "loyalty to the State", it would pave the way for the socialist utopia that was described in his famous socialist cousin Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward". The central idea of "one nation" in the pledge was especially important for achieving his vision of the kind of consolidated, monopoly government necessary for a socialism to be adopted. Additionally, he considered adding the socialist bywords, "liberty, fraternity and equality", but knew that state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

As Bellamy believed youth should be trained in devotion to the State, the public schools as a government institution were the perfect setting for planting the requisite fervent loyalty and patriotism. To promote the Pledge nationwide, a "National Public School Celebration" was held 1892 on Columbus Day. It was the first government sponsored propaganda event on behalf of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a massive campaign that involved government schools and politicians throughout the country. Not only was the Pledge recited en mass for the first time at the behest of government, but public schools were promoted while private schools, especially parochial ones, were criticized.

The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy, Christian socialist minister and author, to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted a salute which had the same form, and which was derived from the Roman salute. This resulted in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Congress adding the phrase "Under God" in 1954, no matter where a comma or pause is inserted doesn't change the fact that The Pledge of Allegiance was intended to promote the idea and instill in children that ultimately the State is supreme and ultimately God.

[knarf]

WHEW!

I have to say ... thank you.

I never know what education I receive when I post to FReerepublic

[smartyaz]

[imardmd1]

To me, your contention is asinine. The Declaration is about becoming independent of Britain unified under a kingship, and the insuperable principle giving the force was the policy of the agreed union of colonial states into one indivisible nation, forged into one instrument to preserve its integrity.

The concept of secession was proved to be a fraudulent imposition of sectional preferences over the will of the majority to have one constitution, one language, and one republican government to preserve that strength and integrity.

The self-disunified confederation of rebellious states was destroyed, their professors of defiant rejection of federal authority were detained and disciplined, and their troops defeated in a conflict that proved the need for and the effectiveness of forging an unbreakable bond to overcome self-serving sectional interests when they undermined the will and the benefit of the whole, as determined by the majority.

Like it or not, the desire to disunify the continental is self-defeating. Where we still need to be applying the Declaration of Independence is to keep on giving notice to the rest of the world that we intend to stay independent of their systems that are opposed to the way of life defined by those who issued that Declaration, and who made it stick in their lifetimes.

I do not, and cannot agree with the mindset of anyone who is given over to once more divide our country such that it can be gobbled up piece by piece by a force whose politico-religious influence has surpassed international boundaries.

I believe we need to agree as a national majority to institute the same kind of isolation and death sentence on incorrigible oppositionally defiant instigators of the terroristic Muslim paradigm that wishes to destroy us from within and without; and that we as a nation need to do it now, starting at the most prominent figures who are clearly determined to remove the right of the individual human to enjoy life, liberty, and such pursuit of happiness that it does not destroy the rights of others to do the same.

We did this to Inquisitors, to anarchists, to Nazis, to Communists, and now we need to turn our full attention to block the entry of Islamist fascists and their philosophies into our country and culture.

IMO.

Please drop this destructive idea of dividing the indivisible, and start helping to purge the leaven from the loaf, cell by cell, tyrant by tyrant; and if necessary, with both pen and sword.

[rlmorel]

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.

That is how we said it.

[rlmorel]

“One Country, One Language, One Flag” sounds too much like “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”

[imardmd1]

... and since reading that, my attention to language has been sharpenned

Now that is a keen observation, my FRiend.

[imardmd1]

People still do(,) wherever I go.( )

I'm glad that it is(,) as yet individually(,) a free country( ) to at least pause( ) whenever one runs out of breath(,) regardless of whether or not( ) the logical thought( ) is( ) complete.( )

That is a tool( ) of the rhetorician( ) to pace the delivery( ) for those who are slow( ) of thought.( )

Have at it!

[rlmorel]

Heheheh...

It is an underutilized tool in this day of “hru, thx cu ltr, gtg” type of communication, but it is so effective.

To be honest, I never used to text. Ever. Now I do, but I can’t bring myself to do it that way. I still have to compose it like a formally read document. Granted, it isn’t hard using speech recognition, but it is funny to see the one sided looking conversations in the texting trail!

[knarf]

"A well regulated Militia,

being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed."

MOST important

It's not a well regulated people nor the right of the militia.

Perhaps license can be made rhetorically, but a doctrine should be gramatically defined

I'm enjoying this thread .... as should we all.