-

My Blog

My thoughts on it all

Court refuses to reconsider Pledge decision

Mar 7, 2003 — [link http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/28/pledge.of.allegiance.ap/index.html] Enjoy this reading...[/link]

Why did I post this? Becuase I know someone here has an opinion or three about it, and wants to say something.

To lay the foundation for what I am certain to be a lenghty, detailed and well-versed response...

[b][i]...and lead us not into temptations, but deliver us from Wirehead.[/b][/i]

Preach on, W, preach on...

Doofman says:

Here's what confused me about the situation: Before 1954, the pledge didn't have the words "under god" in it. Now the court says that that law may be unconstitutional. So why is the whole pledge banned? Why can't the pledge be severable, and that the pre-1954 version be acceptable, which I assume means that it can be recited exactly the same as before, but without "under god?" Essentially my question is a point of law, not a point of opinion.

Jackson says:

We live in country of corrupt moral values, I'm not surprised to see such idiotic tendencies such as this. It's like the theory of shooting a horse for having a broken leg - it's such a blatant misuse of responsibility.

Aesopian says:

I thought I would share this quote from another forum I read:

[quote]I remember asking myself this question when I was 14 and downloading pr0n off the internet. Is it wrong for me to want to look at someone my own age?
Of course now that I'm 19 I find child porn criminal because of the way it's made and although I'm still cool I think no child should have to go through this kind of shit.
It's these kinds of double standards that keep society happily fucked up.[/quote]

The best response to this was:

[quote]That was possibly the most true, most depressing post I have ever seen on any forum. Congratulations.[/quote]

Wirehead says:

I'd have to agree with Doofman on this one. I was not aware that the Pledge of Allegiance had been altered from the original (always a source of trouble...how many times did your XT/AT ever BSOD on you?)

Although I find the whole idea that anyone could have enough of a problem with this to take it to court to be just plain ridiculous, and I don't feel that anyone would ever be scarred for life from being forced to recite the Pledge (horrors!) every morning at school, it seems like the simplest solution would be to just sidestep all the BS and return it to its original form. Personally I prefer it with "Under God" because I feel it more accurately symbolizes how the nation was really formed and for what reason, but I'd much rather say it without "Under God" than not say it at all.

Incidentally, didn't congress have anything better to do in 1954? Weren't there pressing matters of international nuclear proliferation to be attended to or something? I think half the problems in this nation would go away (or never come into existence) if meddling lawmakers would just leave well enough the HELL alone.

Sorry to disappoint, Lisboa. Perhaps when my fever goes down I'll feel more verbose.


[edit]Edited by Wirehead: Mar. 7, 2003 - 11:58:26 PM[/edit]

Doofman says:

[quote]Incidentally, didn't congress have anything better to do in 1954? Weren't there pressing matters of international nuclear proliferation to be attended to or something? I think half the problems in this nation would go away (or never come into existence) if meddling lawmakers would just leave well enough the HELL alone.[/quote]

Actually, the reason that Congress added the phrase was to distinguish the US from the "godless" communists of the USSR. The Pledge was originally written in 1892, with some revisions until 1923, when it began common acceptance and recitation. In 1942, it was "officially" authorized by Congress, although schoolchildren had been reciting it before this point. The 1954 change, in my mind, represents simple political posturing, and many people speculate that the original author of the Pledge (Francis Bellamy, although he derived many of his ideas from his cousin) would not have approved the change

[quote]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.[/quote]

So while many people feel that the Pledge has, does, and always should express the idea that everyone in this country believes in God, this was never the original intent. I think that reversing a Cold War policy decision is not the worst thing we could do, and certainly would represent a reasonable compromise.

sources: [link http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm]here[/link] and [link http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html]here[/link]

Wirehead says:

Interesting.

Sorta proves my point, as well. Almost anyone almost always has something better to do than political posturing. Well, MORALLY better anyway. Maybe not better for their careers.

Post A Reply:





Sorry, but before you can reply you must either log in or sign up.