Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

One Nation...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Nation...

    So- how do you feel about the "under God" part of the pledge of Allegiance

    The Pledge of Allegiance
    A Short History

    by Dr. John W. Baer

    Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer


    Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

    Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

    The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

    In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

    His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

    Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

    In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

    In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

    Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

    What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

    It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

    The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

    Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
    Personally, the first thing I think is "Whose God?" and what happens if you believe in more than one? or none at all?

    Do you think it should stay or go?

    I don't think it added anything - I think we are all capable of pledging our alligiance to our country without having to have God involved. but you guys probably guessed that already.

    Jenn

  • #2
    When I say the pledge, I never say "under God". As you pointed out, to me, there is none. That doesn't make me less of a patriot or lover of the USA. I do think it should be removed as well as "In God We Trust" from our money.
    Heidi, PA-S1 - wife to an orthopaedic surgeon, mom to Ryan, 17, and Alexia, 11.


    Comment


    • #3
      I think it should be left out as well, mostly because of the separation between church and state. BUT, I didn't know about the fact that the original author wanted "equality" in there as well. That would be a good addition, IMO.
      Wife to a urologist; Mom to 2 wonderful kiddos

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by *Lily*
        I think we need to get religion out of politics as a means of getting the church out of the state.
        Agreed!
        Wife to a urologist; Mom to 2 wonderful kiddos

        Comment


        • #5
          Can't believe I'm jumping in here, but I love the USSC's reasoning that the Government should be allowed to acknowledge religion but not advance it.

          The Pledge is part of our heritage, not an evolving manifesto continually changing to reflect where we were/are/will be as a society. If you want to opt out of saying portions, great. No one should be compelled to recite it, either. Still, I think that it is a slippery slope to allow this sort of revision.

          OMG, I think I just took on the same position as the religious right.

          Quick...some one pour me a tall one and bring me back.

          Kelly
          In my dreams I run with the Kenyans.

          Comment


          • #6
            Kelly,

            Pour me one too. I agree with you!

            Kris
            ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
            ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

            Comment


            • #7
              Which revision though?

              The add it in or the take it out?

              Since it wasn't part of the original, shouldn't then the Under God part be removed?

              (and don't worry, we'll reel you in if you get dangerously close to the cliff)

              Jenn

              Comment


              • #8
                I think that revisions shouldn't be made at all unless they are incredibly unjust. The original lyrics to "My Ol' Kentucky Home" included the phrase, "...and all the darkies are gay". Clearly, this is a case where a written tradition needed revision. (Modern lyrics provide "...and all the children are gay") We need to stop at this point in the debate and honor the University of Kentucky before proceeding.


                moment of silence....humming "my Ol' Kentucky home"...


                O.K. I'm back to the topic at hand. I think that yes, this was revised inappropriately. I fail to see how a second revision is compelling enough to alter this historical text. We need to scrutinize proposed changes to uphold traditions except for the extreme cases like cited supra. These words are where we come from and part of our legacy. This is not a proviso that we should alter every few years.

                I want to reiterate again, that not just because of the God reason, no one should EVER be compelled to recite the Pledge or even state that they agree to it. I think that this is a far scarier scenario than offending someone by acknowleding this country's roots in religion.

                Kelly
                In my dreams I run with the Kenyans.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here's the problem that I have with revising....forgive my ramblings (I've had a big glass of german beer )

                  The pledge is a historic document...it is a party of our history. It's just silly when we go back in time now and change buildings, books, money and the pledge etc because we find them offensive today. I don't think Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer should be outlawed or changed...yet some of the language is offensive.

                  Just like we read those books and gain a historical perspective, the pledge of allegiance and our money provide us with a peek into our nations history. We should embrace it and include whichever God we choose...hindu, muslim, christian, tree, cat....Oh, OK, feel free to worship me :> ....whatever...as our meaning if we schoose to say that part of it.

                  We can opt to not say certain parts if it offends us so much...but really...isn't there enough shit out there hitting the fans that we could focus on that would bring about some positive change? Besides that, how often do we actually say it? And really...who is here busy reading their money every day? Leave the pledge and the money alone...it's a part of our history.

                  kris
                  ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
                  ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But the historical document is the one that didn't have "under God" in it.

                    I don't care either way. I remember mouthing the "god" part in my "rebel" middle school and high school days. Now I don't care.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Genivieve
                      But the historical document is the one that didn't have "under God" in it.
                      I guess I just see it as part of our history that it was changed and is....what it is today.

                      That being said, if my husband hadn't forced the issue of CDs and DVDs, I would still be using casettes and VHS tapes...so who am I to comment? :> Actually, it was even HIS idea to get a computer. I vehemently opposed it back then, accusing HIM of then using the only free moments that we had to play online. Little did we both know that it would be me who would be gobblig up the internet. :>


                      kris
                      ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
                      ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, it became a document that accurately reflected the founding of America and the make-up of America from its inception to this point in time. I'm sure any socialist would be upset at that. I mean, the guy who originally wrote it didn't want to specify that we were pledging allegiance to the United States flag for crying out loud.

                        This is a case of an OK document being improved upon. It's not a foundation for our government as the Constitution is but a reflection of the values espoused by Americans from the beginning to now and, as such, reflects what the normal, average American has held dear/important in the past up until this day.

                        Seperation of church and state does not mean we have freedom from religion - it means we have freedom of religion and, as someone pointed out, the Pledge of Allegiance does not specify which God, how many Gods, gender, etc. Rather, it acknowledges religion as an aspect in the inception and continuation of America. If we suddenly became a nation of atheists then it would be far removed from an accurate portrayal of America. But, we're not - recent polls, for example, have shown that an overwhelming number of Americans either think that the current President talks about God "enough" or "not enough" - with a small minority trailing behind who believes he talks about God "too much".

                        So, just as the Declaration of Independence states that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "endowed by our Creator" (a direct Deist reference to God) it also rails against the religious persecution of the British king at the time. There is no conflict in acknowledging God (which the vast majority of Americans DO in one form or another) and enjoying religious freedom.
                        Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                        With fingernails that shine like justice
                        And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by house elf
                          The Pledge is part of our heritage, not an evolving manifesto continually changing to reflect where we were/are/will be as a society.

                          Still, I think that it is a slippery slope to allow this sort of revision.
                          But it was just fine to allow revisions as recently as the 50's? And simply reverting it to *fewer* revisions is somehow worse? I would think that people who really felt this way would be all for changing it back to the way it was *originally*.

                          How can something added in the 50's be part of our *heritage* as a country, is I guess another part of what I don't get about this viewpoint. My parents were in HS in the early 50's; the pledge having "under God" certainly isn't part of their "heritage"; it's not how they learned it.
                          Sandy
                          Wife of EM Attending, Web Programmer, mom to one older lady scaredy-cat and one sweet-but-dumb younger boy kitty

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ladybug
                            Shocker...no really...I couldn't care less. I do not believe we are a nation under God. In fact, it's a little insulting. It wouldn't bother me either way honestly.
                            This is where I sit as well.

                            Flynn

                            Wife to post training CT surgeon; mother of three kids ages 17, 15, and 11.

                            “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” —Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets " Albus Dumbledore

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tabula Rasa
                              Well, it became a document that accurately reflected the founding of America and the make-up of America from its inception to this point in time. I'm sure any socialist would be upset at that. I mean, the guy who originally wrote it didn't want to specify that we were pledging allegiance to the United States flag for crying out loud.

                              This is a case of an OK document being improved upon. It's not a foundation for our government as the Constitution is but a reflection of the values espoused by Americans from the beginning to now and, as such, reflects what the normal, average American has held dear/important in the past up until this day.

                              Seperation of church and state does not mean we have freedom from religion - it means we have freedom of religion and, as someone pointed out, the Pledge of Allegiance does not specify which God, how many Gods, gender, etc. Rather, it acknowledges religion as an aspect in the inception and continuation of America. If we suddenly became a nation of atheists then it would be far removed from an accurate portrayal of America. But, we're not - recent polls, for example, have shown that an overwhelming number of Americans either think that the current President talks about God "enough" or "not enough" - with a small minority trailing behind who believes he talks about God "too much".

                              So, just as the Declaration of Independence states that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "endowed by our Creator" (a direct Deist reference to God) it also rails against the religious persecution of the British king at the time. There is no conflict in acknowledging God (which the vast majority of Americans DO in one form or another) and enjoying religious freedom.
                              So, I ask you then, if the majority of Americans, some 90% of them were believers of a particular faith, and in this faith they worshiped trolls. Our pledge was changed to "one nation under trolls" and our money had inscribed upon it "in trolls we trust," would you feel the same way?

                              To me, the first pledge was not improved upon in the 1950's and the money was not improved in 1864 when "In God We Trust" was first added to the two-cent piece. Just because a majority of people feel a certain way does not mean that it is the right thing to do.

                              "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."
                              The above was proposed as a change to the preamble of our consitution, which luckily did not happen. Would that have been an improvement? It seems to me that freedom of religion and separation of church and state are easily interpreted to be "freedom of religion as long as it is one, and better if it's Christian" and "seperation of church and state with the assumption that the state is a Christian one."

                              Long live trolls!
                              Heidi, PA-S1 - wife to an orthopaedic surgeon, mom to Ryan, 17, and Alexia, 11.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X