Oh I've not done this in a while, should be great fun tearing this shit apart.
Traveler said:
Let's remember what the good ol' USA was founded on, shall we? Let us visit the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I've underlined a few words in here to illustrate that the original crafters of our union designated a God and Creator, note the capitalization. That indicated the Biblical notion of God and not the idea of a universal lower case 'god'.
Anyone who is arguing that the words "under God" should not be added because it was not what the original author penned, should also be arguing that the amendments added to the United States Bill of Rights should also not be included, because they are not what the original authors penned. Let's be consistent in our logic, folks.
Well look at that, quoting a propaganda piece arguing for our divine right to separate from the power of an individual who's claim to power is the divine right to rule. As though it wouldn't make sense to use the same rhetoric.
As to your second argument, that makes no sense. There is no flaw in demanding a change to the pledge while accepting that the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights can be altered. It has the mechanics for doing so built into it and has seen change. There is a reason it's called a living document.
Also it's not an argument of should be added as it's already fucking in there.
The First Amendment is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Continuing with the quotes I see, well I can do that too; but before we get there let's look at this little bit.
I see you underlined the prohibiting the free exercise part, which is nice. It's good to know that the Fist Amendment allows me practise whatever faith I choose to engage in, or even none. Still somehow you think that part will help your argument, which you'll see just isn't true. Still you like to quote things and seem to conflate the pledge with free expression of religion. I'll destroy that in a moment; but let's toss up some quotes of my own.
Constitution Article VI said:
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This is a handy little thing, I love it. It's what allowed Kennedy to become president, the first Catholic in a sea of Protestants and a handful of Deists. What does this have to do with the pledge? Well if you actually stop to think about what the pledge is you'd understand.
At it's core the pledge is a loyalty test to the State. If you abstain then you don't pledge your loyalty. The schools are the direct representation of the State to the students. If we can't have a faith test on politicians why should we include one in our loyalty test?
Further even if someone just omits the "under god" part they mark themselves as outsiders from the norm. Opening them up for abuse from their peers.
Still, not the nail in the coffin I need.
John Adams said:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
Well damn son. There goes the core of your America is a Biblical founded nation. Destroyed by our second President.
Still one more I think we share here, it's very important.
Thomas Jefferson said:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
The letter that brought us that little phrase people love to quote, separation of church and state. I don't think you understand what that phrase means though, your post clearly shows you don't.
So to spell it out, what it means is that the State won't meddle in your religious beliefs. It may meddle in some practises for the good of society, human sacrifice and any other act that would violate another individual's constitutional right, just not beliefs be them religious or political or any other damn thing.
If we were indeed a Biblical nation, there would be no need for such a separation. There would be a need for a religious test. It would be treason for the president to say otherwise. If we were, what sect would reign supreme? First in the eye of the law?
We all like the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble and to petition the Government (note the capitalization?) for redress of grievances. Why don't we like the fact that Congress isn't supposed to make laws to establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of it? Simply acknowledging it as part of our history is not establishing it as a state religion. That would be as stupid as saying that acknowledging that slavery existed in our past means that it's condoned as a practice in our present time. Yet that's the argument that Atheists take.
If we were to acknowledge the pledge as a historical piece then we'd study it within the confines of who wrote it, why did they write it, when was it altered, what reasons was it altered. Those are points of discussion which acknowledged the historical significance of the pledge.
Recitation is not such a thing.
To require a student, even if voluntary, to acknowledge a god that they might not believe in is wrong, especially if it's referring to the Biblical god as that makes a demand on a far larger part of the population. Even if we take to the argument that it's a non personal higher power that still excludes faiths that are polytheistic or atheistic, like some sects of Buddhism.
In your personal life you are free to say GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD all you like; but the state can not force you to do so.
I don't know why you choose to conflate saying you believing that America is watched over by God is the same thing as the State having you say that.
Pledging allegiance to our country and our country's ideals is not a bad thing. Anyone can simply stand in respect and remain silent if they don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but to mandate that certain words be omitted after they have been part of our national history for over half a century is inane and short-sighted. In the USA we are all Americans. Not African-Americans, not Asian-Americans... we're all one nation, under God.
You don't seem to know history, like McCarthy and his Red Scare, Communist is still a bad word in America. To abstain from speaking the words marks someone as an outsider and not to be trusted, less they pollute our bodily fluids with their fluoride.
What's truly amusing is that you give more weight to the 50 years of inclusion then the 50 years where it wasn't in the damn thing at all. Those words that spark this whole debate weren't even in the pledge when it was formally adopted.
You do not have to worship God or believe in Him, but that doesn't mean that you can take away someone else's right to acknowledge Him. Fortunately in our country we don't cut off people's heads or stone them for having other beliefs, nor do we fire them from jobs or keep them from buying nice houses or going to good schools simply because they pray to Allah or bow to Buddah or worship the trees in their back yard. We as a nation are more loving and tolerant towards different religions than anywhere else in the world, and I've been to enough other countries to be a reliable witness to this fact.
There is no removal of a right here. What it is a protection of your right to acknowledge any divinity.
Fortunately for you the State doesn't require you to acknowledge Allah, Thor, Apollo, Buddha, Vishnu, or even the Mormon version of God, or the Catholic, Calvinist, Seventh Day Advent, Orthodox variation of the Christian God. You could even worship those trees.
You see, you're not stopped from this by the exclusion of words from the pledge. What's going on is that the State isn't violating anyone's religious beliefs, or lack, by excluding them. This is how the Rights in the Constitution work. They prevent the State from interfering with you, regardless of your ideas. They protect the least of us from the ideas of the majority.
A majority you are obviously far too comfortable being a part of to see what the issue is.
Unfortunately the religion of Atheism has been forcing changes in our country and demanding that any respect towards any religion is an affront to them and thus it must be undone. This is favoring one religion, Atheism, over all others.
Well damn, I've forgotten to tithe my 10% to the Atheist Pope.
Though it's amusing to see someone saying it's the Biblical God that we call upon accuse Atheists as being opposed to respecting any religion. Again, the argument is to prevent the State from meddling in your beliefs, or anyone else's by having "under god" in a loyalty test.
I know, let's define god here as Satan, see how quick they change their tunes.
Leave our pledge alone. If you don't want to say it then don't say it, but I abhor the fact that so many people are jumping on the bandwagon of taking the word 'God' out of so many of our documents and traditions.
Just because something is popular does not make it right, and often what is right is not what is popular.
Why couldn't you do that first? Why did you meddle with the pledge, altering it from something that could be easily adopted by any nation into something only for America?
Why must god be included by the State? Isn't this a land for all people? Give me your weak, your tired, your weary. Are we not a multiplicity of people that are unified by the simple fact of being American? Why must you create within the State these demarcations?
~Now... feel free to flame if you need to. But remember the sayings of a wise man:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The inclusion of this bit says one of two things. Either you're a troll, in which case you're a shit human being. Or you believe you're right, in which case you're still a shit human being.
And if that's not enough, a more contemporary wise man:
"If you really want to persuade thoughtful people...you’ll need to appear credible - not hysterical. Lower case should work just fine." ~Mike Rowe
This last bit is just an attempt to short circuit any discussion by allowing you to discredit anyone who's tone you don't like as unconvincing and hysterical.
You should probably apologise.
Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
