Perspective

[iNow]

If it was instead "one nation under Zeus"(or allah) it might be a better example. However, if it was that way for a while, the children might ask "but Zeus doesn't exist, why do we still say that?" Because we've been saying it for 100 years, just go with, it's tradition. Oh no, you've brainwashed the little children into saying something they don't understand, the horror!

 

Now THAT would be a strawman.

[Sisyphus]

The two sides of this argument don't seem to be meeting one another head on. On the one side, you have people saying it's exclusive, and on the other, you have people saying it's not a major issue. Those aren't mutually exclusive. I happen to think both statements are true. Was I deeply offended or traumatized by having to say it? No, of course not. But that doesn't make it right, does it?

[ydoaPs]

If it was instead "one nation under Zeus"(or allah) it might be a better example. The distinction being that when you say 'one white nation' you're being exclusive of the other people in the country. But when you say 'under X', you need not necessarily believe in, or be an X.

 

Alonzo's point, from what I can tell, is that they are BOTH being exclusive of the other people in the country. What he is saying, is that the Pledge as currently written says that a group of people(in this case, atheists) are not Americans. Sounds a bit like Bush Sr.

[Saryctos]

Alonzo's point, from what I can tell, is that they are BOTH being exclusive of the other people in the country. What he is saying, is that the Pledge as currently written says that a group of people(in this case, atheists) are not Americans. Sounds a bit like Bush Sr.

 

I really can't believe that was the intention of the statement. If Alonzo feels that they put it in there,basically because they could(warning strawman), then that says a lot more about his feeling towards theists in the government than the words of the pledge.

 

By making the comparison to 'white nation', what is he really trying to say? Is he appealing to the 'there's no way we'd let that happen' common sense in people? Trying to show that people are apathetic to religious discrimination, and that's the reason it's allowed to be in the pledge? I can certainly see where he'd be coming from on that point. I really don't think that was the intention when it was written though, but I can definately understand why given that perspective it would cause some unrest.

 

The only solution I can think of that allows both sides to save face is to just nix the whole pledge of allegiance resitation. People for 'under god' get to say they didn't change it, and people who were agains't it are pleased because people won't be saying it at all. After all, I can't believe I haven't heard people complaining about the pledge's existance in the first place, reguardless of wording. Making children pledge allegiance to the state every morning sounds like something that people would scream fascism at.

 

 

Now I may be missing the mark all together on this issue, probably cause I'm one of those 'it's a non issue' guys. But I'm very interested in hearing about what exactly the problem is, so that it can be resolved, so there's one less "non issue" for me to be caring about. Because I really don't know what the problem is. All I know is that it's got people talking, but what problems is it really causing? What can be done to fix it? Can it even be fixed, or is it one of those issues that just never dies because there's no good compromise?

[iNow]

Good post, that, Saryctos.

 

 

It made me find this link:

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm

 

The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States.

The first organized use of the Pledge of Allegiance came on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of Columbus' voyage.

 

In 1923, the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C. voted to change the words "my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America."

 

Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it.

 

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

"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."

[CDarwin]

Actually, the wording of the pledge inadvertently makes an interesting theological argument. "One Nation Under God Indivisible." Is the nation indivisible or is God indivisible? The latter would be Unitarianism, not exactly an orthodox position in Christianity. I never noticed that before, ha.

[Pangloss]

Also, if God buds copies of himself, do we still have to do what he says?

 

Lol, trust a bunch of geeks to find all the loopholes!

[ydoaPs]

Alonzo added two more installments to the story. They aren't on the pdf yet, though, so you'll have to read them on his blog for now.

[ydoaPs]

Part 7 was posted on Alonzo's blag.