This time I am in argument with my mother over "under god" being in the pledge and how we are disrespectful to our country for not saying it. I am going insane with people confusing patriotism with or pledge that was altered in 1954 and violates our first amendment. I am very much in agreement with the rest of our allegiance; just not the "god" part. Any other rants out there?

Views: 817

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

...I am very uncomfortable, as I am sure all of us are, in having to say those words  in the pledge.

SCOTUS in 1943 ruled that no one has to say either those words or any other part of the Pledge.

Federal appellate courts have ruled that no one has to stand while others are saying the Pledge. This issue might go to SCOTUS if other appellate courts rule differently.

Theists and other scoundrels have long pretended to own patriotism. They use it to conceal their misdeeds.

At least the "with liberty and justice for all rich straight Christian white men" part makes sense.

The only pledge I'm going to make is to preserve my virginity until . . . oh, wait.

You screwed up?

So to speak. (Not sure how the direction is relevant.)

Even though I've never been plagued by a modicum of restraint, I'm going to refrain from making a rimshot comment.

If the Repub Party wants to survive, they'll have to get a few million rich old white male immigrants and make them citizens.

They haven't succeeded so they're trying to keep minority citizens from voting,

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for Richard Stands."

First grade  1952

"... one nation, in a dirigible, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls."

Bill Poser wrote at Language Log about the pledge's purpose of indoctrinating loyalty to the state. "In [the March 24, 2004] column in the New York Times, entitled Of God and the Flag, William Safire reports that as a little boy he thought that the Pledge began "I led the pigeons to the flag". In a roundabout way, I think he understood it all too well."

I used two approaches when we in Australia had a national anthem of "god save the Queen".

I refused to sing it at school assembly.

When confronted by the principle, who was a reasonable bloke.

As it was a very long time ago, I stated something like:  "Saving the Queen, regardless of who does it, doesn't help our nation out of the problems it faces and I be more of a patriot if I sang god save Australia, but, the only way Australia can be saved is if our leaders stop throwing money away to get votes." 

So we should be singing: "The Pub With No Beer" which shows Australia's current state".

To which he, to my surprise, actually laughed and agreed with me.

Australia was in massive debt at the time.

Though in modern times, I point out that all religious nations try to appeal to god, and god helps absolutely none of them, so having god in a national statement, does absolutely nothing for that nation, it only makes them appear naive and stupid in including god.

So, if the US wants to show itself as an intelligent nation, they should leave god out of their pledge of allegiance,

Having god in their pledge of allegiance, only makes US citizens appear very dumb and totally ignorant of reality.

That is how most of us Australians see countries who include god  in their pledge of allegiance.

Australians do have "so help me god" in the new citizenship oath/pledge, but it is only something new citizens have to say once in their lives, so it is non-sequitur to most Australians.

If we had to say it regularly, we would complain and have god tossed out of it, many of us want the queen thrown out of the pledge as well.

So the oath was designed by the Commonwealth, not by Australians.

Some day we will become a republic and ditch both Queen and god from our new citizenship pledge.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service