2007-10-07 09:03:11 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes. There's no reason to make the Pledge a divisive, anti-American statement. We should obviously restore the pre-1954 Pledge, or scrap it altogether in favor of a more unifying and patriotic one.
2007-10-07 09:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes! When I was a child it was not there. It was added in the 50s and has been a bone of contention since that time. It does not change the meaning of the pledge, it only forces some people to pledge to something they don't believe. I am Christian and it doesn't bother me. For those who do not believe in God yet it becomes a problem.
2007-10-07 16:45:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
~Yes God should be taken out of the pledge of Elegance because as an agnostic citizen I should be able to be elegant without God.
~Yes God should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance because I as an agnostic citizen be able to pledge to the country I believe in but not have to pledge to a god I don't believe in.
~Yes God should also be taken of my money too. Once again its me paying my bills and making that money not God!
2007-10-07 16:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by munkeybusines 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
' I pledge Elegance to Martha Stewart, so that I can shop at Kame A part ( KMART) and not feel poor, I pledge Elegance to Mary Kay so that I may always be beautiful, I pledge Elegance to Gottshalkes so I can have Name Brand clothing.
Blah BLah Blah....
If you don't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then don't. At least learn how to spell it.
The Pledge of Allegiance
When the popular American comedian Red Skelton
was a young man, he learned the meaning of the
Pledge of Allegiance from one of his teachers.
The lesson became so meaningful he remembered the
explanation of his teacher, Mr. Laswell, throughout his lifetime.
The ironic thing is when he made this recording he did
not add the words "Under God." Be sure and
read what he said about it at the end of his pledge.
In 1969 Red Skelton made the following recording.
An explanation of the Pledge Of Allegiance.
I: Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge: Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance: My love and my devotion.
To the Flag: Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
United: That means that we have all come together.
States: Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic: Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands ,One Nation:
One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible: Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty: Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice: The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
For All: For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine
2007-10-07 16:24:54 · answer #4 · answered by beanhead1972((14HIM)) 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do I have to make a pledge to show my allegiance to this country? Is that what patriotism is all about?
As a child, I was pledging allegiance to the flag when my people were being denied the vote in parts of this country.
Should God be removed from the pledge? I don't care what's in it, I won't say it.
2007-10-07 16:17:44 · answer #5 · answered by Equinoxical ™ 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it should be removed since it wasn't there to begin with. To the person above me who said the founding fathers put it in, know your history. The pledge wasn't written until 1892. The daughters of the author were still alive in 1954 when under God was added and said their father wouldn't have approved of the change.
2007-10-07 16:12:26 · answer #6 · answered by Purdey EP 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The addition ruins the original cadence. I say take it out. The whole thing seems silly anyway. 6 year olds don't really understand what they're doing by pledging, and in later life it is just an empty gesture. True patriotism is shown by actually doing something for your country, whether it is civic service, military service, or simply paying attention to the political process.
2007-10-07 16:12:02 · answer #7 · answered by Bob C 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm interested in hearing more about this Pledge of Elegance.
2007-10-07 16:08:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it was inserted unconstitutionally anyway.
Recite the pledge out loud, omitting the "under god" and see how smoothly it flows.
Mrs. Reggie Bush, it was not put there by our founding fathers. It was written in the late 19th century by a Baptist minister (who was also a socialist).
It didn't gain traction until the Red Scare of the 1950s, when "under god" was inserted.
I loudly say "Under LAW" when forced to repeat it.
2007-10-07 16:08:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Well, since it was because of Joseph McCarthy that the phase was added in the first place, yes, it should be removed. But hey, it's your pledge, you can do what you like with it.
Just...the McCarthys of the world shouldn't really be encouraged. He's not exactly someone you should be proud of.
2007-10-07 16:08:44 · answer #10 · answered by Scumspawn 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋