Alison wrote: > i prefer to say, one nation, under elvis, > indivisible... what is so wrong about > "one nation, indivisible, with liberty..."? you know, > the way it was BEFORE?
That's right - you probably already know this but the original pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a Socialist Baptist Minister. Here is a link to the background http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm I read somewhere else that Bellamy thought about adding the word "equality" but thought it too "politically incorrect" for the time when blacks and women were not considered equal by some (so his pledge would not be as popular as he would like at the time). > and does it not seem a little odd that people are > getting their panties in a wad over removing a phrase > that has been part of the allegiance for less than > half it's life? Interestingly, Peter Rodino, a fierce opponent of prayer in public schools (and one of the chief figures in Nixon's impeachment hearings), was a co-sponsor of the bill to add "under God." Rodino also has come out against the ruling. See here http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1025169006122821.xml My thoughts on the change is that a lot of people in the past felt uncomfortable and offended by pledging an allegiance to "the state" as if one must recognize "the state" as the "highest power" inherent in the original pledge. I think to mollify many people who that offended, the "under God" may have been added so as to soften the perception that one may be placing allegiance to man and the state as their highest duty. There were many, and still are many in the U.S. who do not consider the state as the highest power, but rather that there is a greater spiritual power, individual to each, which many follow over the dictates of "state." This debate has been heard many times in the courts over the past almost 60 years. The body of previous case/common law has held that the statement "under God" is de miminus - meaning that, at least in the past, the courts and the people commonly felt that such a term was so generic, minimal and all-encompassing of anyone's spiritual beliefs, that it did not rise to the standard of "establishing a state religion." Here is where I think some people have gotten their "panties in a wad" - this ruling makes it unlawful to include the word "God." This isn't like a bunch of people are casullay sitting around debating where to go to dinner and whether one prefers Mexican food or one prefers Thai. It has seriously legal implications. The court is ruling that it is against the law to include the word "God." What about the fact that the Declaration of Independence mentions "God" many times as do the oaths "so help me God" and the opening prayers referencing "God" already established in Congress and the Supreme Court? This ruling, if allowed to stand, opens the door to making unlawful all such references. So will we then have to censor the original words of the authors of the Declaration and never repeat them in a government funded school? Think that won't happen - ha! So some may say "who cares - that would be great." Others see it as a concerted, incremental erasure of all distinctive American history, culture and reality - BY LAW. That *should* be scary to some people if you really think about it. If the people who want such erasure of the past, decreed by law, succeed, I do hope that all those who compulsively preach their particular political idealogies in publically/government funded institutions such as schools and universities are also likewise prohibited from preaching what is most truly their individual "religion." > i say bring on the change. worship your god in your > home, at your church, in your car, on the street, > whereever. but let me have the separation of church > and state. I tend to say bring on the separation of state and individual freedom of expression. Personally, I never was too keen on having to recite a "pledge" everyday at school. I tend to think they should get rid of it completely. Kakki
