"one nation, under God"

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:55 pm

<a href='http://www.ozyandmillie.org//2002/om20020710.html' target='_blank'><img src='http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2002/om20020710.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /></a> (<a href='http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2627000' target='_blank'>as written in the Houston Chronicle, June 15, 2004</a>) The phrase quoted in the title of this discussion is one fraught with controversy within the United States because of its presence in our Pledge of Allegiance. This controversial issue faced by the Supreme Court has been dodged, for now. On the 50th anniversary of its addition, the Supreme Court has allowed the words "under God" to remain in the pledge not based on the merits of the case but rather because of certain domestic issues that prevented the girl's father to speak to the courts on her behalf. Needless to say, this has added some frustration to both sides of the issue as well as delayed the possibility of resolving this to a legal conclusion.

Arloest · Postby **Arloest** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:10 am

Such a big controversey for, um, 2 words.

hdofu · Postby **hdofu** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:35 am

Started by a guy who used his daughter as a pawn in his agenda. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' />

The_Sparrow_ · Postby **The_Sparrow_** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:23 am

while I don't think anyone should be made to say "under god" the "under god" issue didn't exactly get started in the right circumstances. Before anyone says this issue doesn't effect me, the New Zealand national anthem goes like this God of nations... (insert rest of anthem here) God defend New Zealand. I think our national anthem will be changed eventually though, a lot of people think (to put it bluntly) it sucks and not because of the god part. It just sounds slow and boring. If it does change our flag will likely go as well, a lot of people don't like it either. Now back to the "under god" stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "under god" was originally in the pledge. If that's true, then the words don't really have any historical signifigance. If they did I could understand them being left in but otherwise...

hdofu · Postby **hdofu** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:05 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (The_Sparrow_ @ Jun 16 2004, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> while I don't think anyone should be made to say "under god" the "under god" issue didn't exactly get started in the right circumstances. Before anyone says this issue doesn't effect me, the New Zealand national anthem goes like this God of nations... (insert rest of anthem here) God defend New Zealand. I think our national anthem will be changed eventually though, a lot of people think (to put it bluntly) it sucks and not because of the god part. It just sounds slow and boring. If it does change our flag will likely go as well, a lot of people don't like it either. Now back to the "under god" stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "under god" was originally in the pledge. If that's true, then the words don't really have any historical signifigance. If they did I could understand them being left in but otherwise...  </td></tr></table>  what is it with people missing the keyt word in so many sentences as of late. If you are going to make your argument, don't forget the not.

The_Sparrow_ · Postby **The_Sparrow_** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:14 am

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "under god" was originally in the pledge I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Wasn't would make sense if I phrased it like this... "Correct me if I'm worng but "under god" wasn't originally in the pledge" But "Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "under god" wasn't originally in the pledge" Would mean I think that "under god" was there all the time. (in responce to the post below: 's a'right)

hdofu · Postby **hdofu** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:45 am

sorry I misread it, my bad, alot on my mind.

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:36 am

I go to an anglican school and I don't compliain about having to sing hyms at every assembly.

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:24 pm

I find it strange that people are annoyed about having to lie about just one more thing. I mean, most everybody has lied at one point and not felt guilty about it. I think... but I can still see their point. sorta... I dunno. I'm confused. I mean, I know it's the principle of the pledge is what has them angry, but if they think about it logically or something, they could just think of it as yet another lie in their lives that will blow over sooner or later, depending on when we get a liberal president... I think maybe we should just avoid doing bad things so people don't make us recite the pledge. heh, that could be one of the punishments. "Okay, recite the pledge of alligence 12 times and drink from the mississippi river." I'm pretty sure I was joking about that last part, but it's early morning for me so I'm not entirely sure. and if I just offended anyone right now I am completely unaware of it. ...don't hurt me.

Zylo · Postby **Zylo** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:47 pm

Saying the pledge is optional at my school. It's read during the morning announcements, but you aren't required to say it, the only thing you must do is stand up for it. I know a few people who say the pledge but choose to leave out the phrase "under God." I still say the whole thing, it doesn't bother me. It's not forcing anyone to say anything about God, so personally I think it's harmless.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (The_Sparrow_ @ Jun 15 2004, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "under god" was originally in the pledge. If that's true, then the words don't really have any historical signifigance. If they did I could understand them being left in but otherwise...  </td></tr></table>  The article itself included a sidebar from the Associated Press that can confirm your understanding of the pledge:  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Houston Chronicle sidebar @ Jun 15, 2004)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> RESOURCES Written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy; first published in 1892 in The Youth's Companion, a children's magazine at which Bellamy worked. After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, made its debut in public schools on Oct. 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances. Original wording: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Changed for Flag Day 1924, to "the flag of the United States of America" from "my flag." "Under God" added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, and religious leaders who sermonized that the pledge needed to be distinguished from similar orations used by "godless communists." President Eisenhower asked Congress to add the words, and it did so. Result: "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." Source: Associated Press </td></tr></table>  In short, there is some historical significance, but probably not what you had in mind.

Softpaw · Postby **Softpaw** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:52 am

My opinion on this is two-fold. I don't think that "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, nor should the pledge be required from anyone except military personnel and those holding public office. Anything else is forced patriotism and is wrong, in my opinion.

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:10 am

My school tried to get us to say the pledge every assembly but they've kinda gotten the hint that it's boring as hell and makes their lectures even worse, so they've stopped doing that now.

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (FelixLockhart @ Jun 16 2004, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> My opinion on this is two-fold. I don't think that "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, nor should the pledge be required from anyone except military personnel and those holding public office. Anything else is forced patriotism and is wrong, in my opinion.  </td></tr></table>  Exactly. I don;t see how in a nation that was founded ont eh pricipel that the people have a duty to question and sometimes change their government that the government should impress it's citizens to swear fielty to itself. Dis[pite what George Bush said it goes agaisnt why this nation was founded. Ouir priesident siad that the Decloration of Independants states that thee gevernment is derived form God but if one actully reads the document God is mentioned twice and one of those times is in the date. The document also clearly states that the government derives it's power form the people which it governs. The fact that our President as missed this desturbs me.

Dr. Dos · Postby **Dr. Dos** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:28 pm

Aha! Blame the commies! Or something.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

"one nation, under God"

Who is online