Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abolish the Pledge of Allegiance

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The pledge was neither here nor there for me until joining this website. Now every time I take it and watch everyone else taking it, It feels wrong.

Technically, we have the option to sit and say nothing during the pledge, as it is our right. However, it doesn't put you in a good light sitting down while everyone stands with their hands over their hearts, habitually reciting words they don't really mean...and this concerns high school students.

In elementary school, these children don't even know the meaning of the words they declare. How can they object to something they don't understand?

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

The pledge of allegiance is an assault on the free-thinking individualism that we ought to instill in young Americans. We are not ritualistic automatons that of all honestly pledge allegiance to an inanimate symbol. We should stop this senseless indoctrination.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
The pledge was neither here nor there for me until joining this website. Now every time I take it and watch everyone else taking it, It feels wrong.

Technically, we have the option to sit and say nothing during the pledge, as it is our right. However, it doesn't put you in a good light sitting down while everyone stands with their hands over their hearts, habitually reciting words they don't really mean...and this concerns high school students.

In elementary school, these children don't even know the meaning of the words they declare. How can they object to something they don't understand?

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

The pledge of allegiance is an assault on the free-thinking individualism that we ought to instill in young Americans. We are not ritualistic automatons that of all honestly pledge allegiance to an inanimate symbol. We should stop this senseless indoctrination.

While I don't know that the pledge really is an "assault" on free-thinking I do believe that we could do away with it with little harm.

However, there are a few things I would like to point out:

First off, being a citizen of the United States already makes it so that your alligence is to the United States because if it isn't you are a traitor so repeating something that should already be innately true is a little repetitive.

Secondly, we added "Under God" in order to show our dichotamy between us, yes a theist nation compared to the atheist Soviet Union, that was the biggest reason for the addition and since then the phrase Under God has stood up in the Supreme Court.

Anyways, I don't really care for the pledge either (surprising I know) and say we could drop it.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:58:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Bellamy was a Christian Socialist who 'championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.' but he was forced to leave his Boston church the previous year because of the socialist bent of his sermons." http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:55:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:58:25 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Bellamy was a Christian Socialist who 'championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.' but he was forced to leave his Boston church the previous year because of the socialist bent of his sermons." http://en.wikipedia.org...

If this was directed at my post:

I never said socialism was anti-relgion but the USSR certainly was...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:35:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So all I got was the pledge of allegiance is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to Nazi Germany and the USSR. Glad to know that America chooses best for itself no matter what other nations are doing...lol.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:42:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My Biology professor in high school never said the pledge. He stood in order to not stand out, but he refused to put his hand over his heart and he refused to pledge allegiance to a nation that still harms to rights of minorities.

I agree with his decision.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:43:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Drilling jingoism into children does nothing but hamper their critical thinking skills and willingness to protest unjust governmental actions.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Stop lying in the forums.
Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.
June 2, 1784"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:03:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't go so far to say that it should be abolished. I find it perfectly acceptable if some Americans choose to recite it of their own volition. With that said, I do find it slightly reminiscent of the Hitler Youth to force children to recite it every morning. I do not think it should be compulsory in schools, nor should children fear reprisal for not wanting to participate.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:04:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 10:42:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
My Biology professor in high school never said the pledge. He stood in order to not stand out, but he refused to put his hand over his heart and he refused to pledge allegiance to a nation that still harms to rights of minorities.

I agree with his decision.:

Wow, what a hero. Saving the world one defiant gesture at a time.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:12:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

I think the flag code should be amended, to change the word nation, to Federation. We are not 1 nation, we are 51 nations; each state is a nation, and the union state is a nation of nations.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:17:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

What was the Bellamy salute created for? Since you are going to lie, I will give you the answer; the Bellamy salute was explicitly created for the Pledge. It had nothing to with socialism. The salute was later adopted by Nazis, but it had nothing to do with socialism.

"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931) to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". During the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted salutes which were similar in form, resulting in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress officially amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

You lied about the reason that the Bellamy salute was created.
Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

Since the soul represents free, rational thought, when they pledge allegiance, they pledge their souls to a theist nation.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:50:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?

I'm not sure its very accurate to compare taxes to a pledge. One is done to benefit and protect the people through defense, domestic construction, and aid to the disadvantaged. The other is just intended to instill blind idolatry. Patriotism is something that should be inspired, brought forth and evoked through a countries action, not shoved down children's throats before they were even aware of what our country is and has done. So no, the government should not attempt to maintain national solidarity through making people say certain words, ...they should maintain national solidarity by acting in a way that elicits such words.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:56:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:50:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?

I'm not sure its very accurate to compare taxes to a pledge. One is done to benefit and protect the people through defense, domestic construction, and aid to the disadvantaged. The other is just intended to instill blind idolatry. Patriotism is something that should be inspired, brought forth and evoked through a countries action, not shoved down children's throats before they were even aware of what our country is and has done. So no, the government should not attempt to maintain national solidarity through making people say certain words, ...they should maintain national solidarity by acting in a way that elicits such words.

This. When the government protects the rights of all, I will be proud to be a citizen.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:56:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:50:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?

I'm not sure its very accurate to compare taxes to a pledge. One is done to benefit and protect the people through defense, domestic construction, and aid to the disadvantaged. The other is just intended to instill blind idolatry. Patriotism is something that should be inspired, brought forth and evoked through a countries action, not shoved down children's throats before they were even aware of what our country is and has done. So no, the government should not attempt to maintain national solidarity through making people say certain words, ...they should maintain national solidarity by acting in a way that elicits such words.

This. When the government protects the rights of all, I will be proud to be a citizen.

How exactly do they not? The government strives and succeeds in protecting the Constitutional rights of all citizens. I would like you to point me to one example in which the government has recently not protected the Constitutional rights of citizens.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:18:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 12:01:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:56:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:50:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?

I'm not sure its very accurate to compare taxes to a pledge. One is done to benefit and protect the people through defense, domestic construction, and aid to the disadvantaged. The other is just intended to instill blind idolatry. Patriotism is something that should be inspired, brought forth and evoked through a countries action, not shoved down children's throats before they were even aware of what our country is and has done. So no, the government should not attempt to maintain national solidarity through making people say certain words, ...they should maintain national solidarity by acting in a way that elicits such words.

This. When the government protects the rights of all, I will be proud to be a citizen.

How exactly do they not? The government strives and succeeds in protecting the Constitutional rights of all citizens. I would like you to point me to one example in which the government has recently not protected the Constitutional rights of citizens.

Troy Davis was executed despite the fact that 90% of the witnesses conceded that the police had forced them to wrongfully testify against them. Prosecutors who withold evidence of an individual's innocence are not punished even if it is later discovered that they lied just to get someone convicted. Corporations are counted as people. School district funding is not fair and equal. The Death Penalty vioaltes the Eight Amendment.

Need more examples?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:50:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:43:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:29:56 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:14:57 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
ike strikes me as the type of person who would chew someone out if they said "merry christmas." I'm an atheist and a non-nationalist but I've never been one to go off on every instance of "under God" or every American flag. While there are things I don't like about the US, I do see myself as being very fortunate as to having been born here as opposed to some other tyrannical regime. If anything, at least you can acknowledge that.

No, actually, I love Christmas. Though Christmas has little religious attachment to it, there's no reason to get angry about it because you don't have any such pressure to celebrate it, or feel compelled to celebrate it.

Trust me, I love the United States, and am grateful for this country as much as anyone else. It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off. I have a fundamental dislike of obedience, and it disturbs me when people act so compliant and robotic, doing the whim of some higher imposed force.

You don't have to say it, and I just started thinking of it as saying "thanks." I was going to say I find it a little peculiar that despite that line about compulsion your thoughts towards taxation seem to be indicate a degree of acceptability. Do you think we should maintain any efforts to establish a type of national solidarity?

I'm not sure its very accurate to compare taxes to a pledge. One is done to benefit and protect the people through defense, domestic construction, and aid to the disadvantaged. The other is just intended to instill blind idolatry. Patriotism is something that should be inspired, brought forth and evoked through a countries action, not shoved down children's throats before they were even aware of what our country is and has done. So no, the government should not attempt to maintain national solidarity through making people say certain words, ...they should maintain national solidarity by acting in a way that elicits such words.

I think it's a legitimate comparison, you said "It's just the element of compulsion that sets me off" but you apply it selectively so it probably isn't compulsion. I won't leave you hanging since I'm about to eat lunch but I feel you're attaching too much emotional weight to a once-a-day pledge that isn't even required.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:48:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 11:17:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

What was the Bellamy salute created for? Since you are going to lie, I will give you the answer; the Bellamy salute was explicitly created for the Pledge. It had nothing to with socialism. The salute was later adopted by Nazis, but it had nothing to do with socialism.

"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931) to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". During the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted salutes which were similar in form, resulting in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress officially amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Bellamy Salute and he pledge was created simultaneously by Bellamy; it was not created for the pledge, it was created with the pledge, as part of the pledge.

The Bellamy salute was used by socialists prior to the invention of the raised fist, and was phased out by the raised fist salute; even after the invention of the raised fist salute it took time to phase it out.
http://i44.tinypic.com...

Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

You lied about the reason that the Bellamy salute was created.

No I didn't.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

Since the soul represents free, rational thought, when they pledge allegiance, they pledge their souls to a theist nation.

Wrong

I (Pronoun, The one who is speaking)
Pledge (Verb, To promise solemnly and formally)
Allegiance (Noun, The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Flag (noun, A piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol.)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
United (Adjective, Involving the joint activity of multiple agents.)
States (noun, multiple sovereign governments)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
America (proper Noun, The landmass now divided into the continents of North and South America.)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Republic (Noun, A non-monarchist state, which serves the entire community through a representive government)
For (Preposition, Because of)
Which (Determiner, the one mentioned )
It (pronoun, Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified)
Stands (verb, Be a symbol or embodiment of)
One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
Indivisible (Adjective, unable to be divided)
With (Preposition, Accompanied by)
Liberty (Noun, Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
Justice (Noun, The quality of being just or fair)
For (Preposition, To the benefit of)
All (pronoun,  Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing)

Thus,
The one who is speaking promises to remain emotionally and intellectually loyal to the symbol of the American Federation and to Government for which it represents, a politically organized body of people under a single government that is less than a God, unable to be divided, with immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority and is fair to everyone.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:00:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
DanT, not to be rude, but you didn't really answer to Royal's comment. If "Under God" was added to make the U.S seem theistic in comparison to the U.S.S.R, then it should logically follow that the individual is pledging allegiance to a theistic nation. Where in your recitation of the pledge is this point refuted?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:05:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While I don't know that the pledge really is an "assault" on free-thinking
That was its intent when Francis Bellamy wrote it-- to instill Obedience to the State, unquestioning.

First off, being a citizen of the United States already makes it so that your alligence is to the United States because if it isn't you are a traitor
False:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Joining the military, taking federal office or some state offices requires you to swear allegiance to the Constitution and secondary allegiance to US law, but most people don't do those things.

Secondly, we added "Under God" in order to show our dichotamy between us, yes a theist nation compared to the atheist Soviet Union,
We aren't a theist nation, and the Soviets worshipped a supernatural being that doesn't exist-- the abstract proletariat :)

I, for one, stand up for the national anthem, but not the Pledge.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:15:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 12:48:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:17:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

What was the Bellamy salute created for? Since you are going to lie, I will give you the answer; the Bellamy salute was explicitly created for the Pledge. It had nothing to with socialism. The salute was later adopted by Nazis, but it had nothing to do with socialism.

"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931) to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". During the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted salutes which were similar in form, resulting in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress officially amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Bellamy Salute and he pledge was created simultaneously by Bellamy; it was not created for the pledge, it was created with the pledge, as part of the pledge.

The Bellamy salute was used by socialists prior to the invention of the raised fist, and was phased out by the raised fist salute; even after the invention of the raised fist salute it took time to phase it out.
http://i44.tinypic.com...

The Bellamy salute was eventually adopted by the Nazis and by Hitler. We already knew this; I even provided a quote for that. However, it was created for the pledge, as my evidence indicates. It was not created a symbol of socialist solidarity, as you seem to imply. Just because Bellamy was a socialist does not mean that everything that he created for for socialists.
Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

You lied about the reason that the Bellamy salute was created.

No I didn't.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

Since the soul represents free, rational thought, when they pledge allegiance, they pledge their souls to a theist nation.

Wrong

I (Pronoun, The one who is speaking)
Pledge (Verb, To promise solemnly and formally)
Allegiance (Noun, The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Flag (noun, A piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol.)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
United (Adjective, Involving the joint activity of multiple agents.)
States (noun, multiple sovereign governments)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
America (proper Noun, The landmass now divided into the continents of North and South America.)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Republic (Noun, A non-monarchist state, which serves the entire community through a representive government)
For (Preposition, Because of)
Which (Determiner, the one mentioned )
It (pronoun, Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified)
Stands (verb, Be a symbol or embodiment of)
One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
Indivisible (Adjective, unable to be divided)
With (Preposition, Accompanied by)
Liberty (Noun, Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
Justice (Noun, The quality of being just or fair)
For (Preposition, To the benefit of)
All (pronoun,  Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing)

Thus,
The one who is speaking promises to remain emotionally and intellectually loyal to the symbol of the American Federation and to Government for which it represents, a politically organized body of people under a single government that is less than a God, unable to be divided, with immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority and is fair to everyone.

The phrase "Under God" forces us to pledge ourselves to a theistic nation. Remaining "intellectually loyal" to the flag stifles free thinking, which was exactly my point. Even libertarians like Ragnar agree with me on this point.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:17:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 1:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
DanT, not to be rude, but you didn't really answer to Royal's comment. If "Under God" was added to make the U.S seem theistic in comparison to the U.S.S.R, then it should logically follow that the individual is pledging allegiance to a theistic nation. Where in your recitation of the pledge is this point refuted?

actually I did

"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."

One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

Thus,
"A single politically organized body of people under a single government less than any supernatural being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

this implies religion is above the nation, thus it implies freedom of religion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:21:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 1:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 1:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
DanT, not to be rude, but you didn't really answer to Royal's comment. If "Under God" was added to make the U.S seem theistic in comparison to the U.S.S.R, then it should logically follow that the individual is pledging allegiance to a theistic nation. Where in your recitation of the pledge is this point refuted?

actually I did

"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."

One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

Thus,
"A single politically organized body of people under a single government less than any supernatural being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

this implies religion is above the nation, thus it implies freedom of religion.

It does not imply freedom of religion. It implies that the state is "under the command" or God, or that the nation is theistic. This is a violation of the Constitution; the SC has agreed but has permitted it for "cultural purposes".
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 1:15:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 12:48:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:17:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 11:09:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:46:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:44:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:37:13 PM, 000ike wrote:

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

What was the Bellamy salute created for? Since you are going to lie, I will give you the answer; the Bellamy salute was explicitly created for the Pledge. It had nothing to with socialism. The salute was later adopted by Nazis, but it had nothing to do with socialism.

"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931) to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". During the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted salutes which were similar in form, resulting in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress officially amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Bellamy Salute and he pledge was created simultaneously by Bellamy; it was not created for the pledge, it was created with the pledge, as part of the pledge.

The Bellamy salute was used by socialists prior to the invention of the raised fist, and was phased out by the raised fist salute; even after the invention of the raised fist salute it took time to phase it out.
http://i44.tinypic.com...

The Bellamy salute was eventually adopted by the Nazis and by Hitler. We already knew this; I even provided a quote for that. However, it was created for the pledge, as my evidence indicates. It was not created a symbol of socialist solidarity, as you seem to imply. Just because Bellamy was a socialist does not mean that everything that he created for for socialists.
Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

You lied about the reason that the Bellamy salute was created.

No I didn't.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

Since the soul represents free, rational thought, when they pledge allegiance, they pledge their souls to a theist nation.

Wrong

I (Pronoun, The one who is speaking)
Pledge (Verb, To promise solemnly and formally)
Allegiance (Noun, The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Flag (noun, A piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol.)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
United (Adjective, Involving the joint activity of multiple agents.)
States (noun, multiple sovereign governments)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
America (proper Noun, The landmass now divided into the continents of North and South America.)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Republic (Noun, A non-monarchist state, which serves the entire community through a representive government)
For (Preposition, Because of)
Which (Determiner, the one mentioned )
It (pronoun, Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified)
Stands (verb, Be a symbol or embodiment of)
One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
Indivisible (Adjective, unable to be divided)
With (Preposition, Accompanied by)
Liberty (Noun, Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
Justice (Noun, The quality of being just or fair)
For (Preposition, To the benefit of)
All (pronoun,  Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing)

Thus,
The one who is speaking promises to remain emotionally and intellectually loyal to the symbol of the American Federation and to Government for which it represents, a politically organized body of people under a single government that is less than a God, unable to be divided, with immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority and is fair to everyone.

The phrase "Under God" forces us to pledge ourselves to a theistic nation. Remaining "intellectually loyal" to the flag stifles free thinking, which was exactly my point. Even libertarians like Ragnar agree with me on this point.
No it doesn't; the pledge is "The one who is speaking promises to remain emotionally and intellectually loyal to the symbol of the American Federati
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:24:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

In the 1940s and prior the hand motion for the pledge was the Nazi Salute position...When FDR saw that Hitler and his followers were doing this too, he demonstrated a new motion to the nation, the hand over the heart.

Actually it's the socialist salute, modeled off of what was believed to be the roman empire's salute.

This is the socialist salute: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The raised fist was created in 1917, the Bellamy salute was created in 1855. It was used by countless socialist states, including thr USSR

What was the Bellamy salute created for? Since you are going to lie, I will give you the answer; the Bellamy salute was explicitly created for the Pledge. It had nothing to with socialism. The salute was later adopted by Nazis, but it had nothing to do with socialism.

"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931) to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". During the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted salutes which were similar in form, resulting in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress officially amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Bellamy Salute and he pledge was created simultaneously by Bellamy; it was not created for the pledge, it was created with the pledge, as part of the pledge.

The Bellamy salute was used by socialists prior to the invention of the raised fist, and was phased out by the raised fist salute; even after the invention of the raised fist salute it took time to phase it out.
http://i44.tinypic.com...

The Bellamy salute was eventually adopted by the Nazis and by Hitler. We already knew this; I even provided a quote for that. However, it was created for the pledge, as my evidence indicates. It was not created a symbol of socialist solidarity, as you seem to imply. Just because Bellamy was a socialist does not mean that everything that he created for for socialists.
Stop lying in the forums.

The pledge and salute was created in 1855 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

You lied about the reason that the Bellamy salute was created.

No I didn't.

Then to make matters worse, in the 1950s, our Congress added "Under God" to the pledge, as if to imply the United States was theistic, or those that said the pledge were theistic.

That's absurd, under that logic the NH bill of rights should be abolished, since it reads;

"[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784"
You are strawmanning his position. The fact that it mentions God is not the problem; rather, it is that it subtly endorses religion by having children mindlessly pledge their lives and souls to a theist nation.

No they pledge allegiance; not their lives and soul. They are not pledging to believe in god, they are pledging allegiance to one nation under god.

Since the soul represents free, rational thought, when they pledge allegiance, they pledge their souls to a theist nation.

Wrong

I (Pronoun, The one who is speaking)
Pledge (Verb, To promise solemnly and formally)
Allegiance (Noun, The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Flag (noun, A piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol.)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
United (Adjective, Involving the joint activity of multiple agents.)
States (noun, multiple sovereign governments)
Of (Preposition, Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole)
America (proper Noun, The landmass now divided into the continents of North and South America.)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
To (Preposition, Expressing motion in the direction of)
The (Adjective, Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique)
Republic (Noun, A non-monarchist state, which serves the entire community through a representive government)
For (Preposition, Because of)
Which (Determiner, the one mentioned )
It (pronoun, Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified)
Stands (verb, Be a symbol or embodiment of)
One (Pronoun, A single thing)
Nation (Noun, A politically organized body of people under a single government)
Under (adverb, less than)
God (Noun, Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
Indivisible (Adjective, unable to be divided)
With (Preposition, Accompanied by)
Liberty (Noun, Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority)
And (Conjunction, Used to connect words of the same part of speech that are to be taken jointly)
Justice (Noun, The quality of being just or fair)
For (Preposition, To the benefit of)
All (pronoun,  Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing)

Thus,
The one who is speaking promises to remain emotionally and intellectually loyal to the symbol of the American Federation and to Government for which it represents, a politically organized body of people under a single government that is less than a God, unable to be divided, with immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority and is fair to everyone.

The phrase "Under God" forces us to pledge ourselves to a theistic nation. Remaining "intellectually loyal" to the flag stifles free thinking, which was exactly my point. Even libertarians like Ragnar agree with me on this point.
No it doesn't; the pl

Can I have a source for "under" as "less"? This is the definition that I found for under.

subject to the authority, control, guidance, or instruction

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That buttresses my point. The pledge forces us to be theistic by placing us in the authority or cont