OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
"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."
As I sat in my favorite chair this morning drinking a cup of coffee, I don't why this cropped up in my thoughts! At 7 in the morning? Give me a break!
When I was growing up we had general assembly in school and we all faced the Flag and recited the Pledge. I don't know that happening anymore.
The American Flag = The United States of America. It is not just a piece of cloth. Rarely, does one hear of any other Country disrespecting their flag so openly. I suppose its all about free speech wouldn't you say? But, why would some people even want to? We live here, born here, took dangerous trips to get here, our families, usually, live here, we make our living here, we are protected from harm by our military, we have freedoms some other countries don't have.....so why?
Ok....so, you don't like the "under God". Sorry. Indivisible? We have never been more divided since the Civil War. Liberty and justice? Not always, but name another Country who can boast that they do.
Ultra liberals honestly believe they hold the key to social success. News flash! You don't! You just talk!
Well, I don't know what you can do about our Flag! It is here to stay! Oh, keep using the freedom of speech, but remember, you only have it because of the Flag of the U.S.A.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
'Funny, the article headline is about the pledge of alliance, whatever the fuck that is.'
Yeah that's a new one on me too - Freudian slip?
about the pledge of alliance, whatever the fuck that is.
Lol. You should hear her sing the Star Mangled Banner.
SP.....sorry. For this and not seeing the remark to me handled by you, Thank you.
Keep reading and move this bullshit to metafied
Why? What difference does it make? If it is moved, will you still comment on it, as you are now?
I can appreciate the fact you love my posts so much that you feel it necessary to copy them.
it's cute!
No, I am being serious.
it pleases me to see my posts copied!
Funny, the article headline is about the pledge of alliance, whatever the fuck that is.
Deleted, Skirting {SP}
Ok....so, you don't like the "under God". Sorry. Indivisible? We have never been more divided since the Civil War. Liberty and justice? Not always, but name another Country who can boast that they do.
The phrase "under God" was not original and only added in the 1950s because of the supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed. It should be removed because it's a state endorsement of religious belief and one religion (Christianity) in particular. Obviously, the US is not a Christian nation, despite the fact that Christians are the dominant religious belief because of the First Amendments two religious freedom clauses.
The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 for a magazine contest, and it read: "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase "under God” into the Pledge.
Proponents of including "under God" in the Pledge argue that the United States is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support the phrase, the language reflects America’s civic culture and is not a religious statement, and federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to God.
Why would anyone want or might possibly be forced to pledge allegiance to a country is beyond me because that act seems quite authoritarian.
The phrase "under God" was not original and only added in the 1950s because of the supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed. It should be removed because it's a state endorsement of religious belief and one religion (Christianity) in particular.
Although this argument has been raised before, the Supreme Court has never ruled that simply including the phrase “under God” is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Nor can they do so and still be sane when the very document declaring our independence bases the right to separate from England on the view that our inalienable rights come from God (the Creator), not man, and that even a king man not abridge those God-given rights with impunity.
The phrase "under God" was not original and only added in the 1950s because of the supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed.
"Supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed"? Please list the communist nations that allow ANY form of free religious expression. Perhaps Cuba, China, and the USSR? Even today's North Korean (dictatorship) government restricts religious freedom.
It should be removed because it's a state endorsement of religious belief and one religion (Christianity) in particular.
Precisely WHICH religion does the US Pledge "endorse", epistte? God is recognized in Christianity, BUT God is also acknowledged in two other major monotheistic religions. Have you ever heard of Judaism and Islam?
If you don't want to pledge allegiance to the USA, no one can force you to do so. Read the US Flag Code for details.
Although this argument has been raised before, the Supreme Court has never ruled that simply including the phrase “under God” is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Nor can they do so and still be sane when the very document declaring our independence bases the right to separate from England on the view that our inalienable rights come from God (the Creator), not man, and that even a king man not abridge those God-given rights with impunity.
The US Supreme Court can certainly rule on this issue, but the legal ripeness of the argument for a ruling does not yet exist. There is no legal need for that to phrase to exist because it wasn't added by the courts in the 1950s. It was added by the federal govern by the urging of the Catholic fraternal group the Knights of Columbus.
How would your life be affected if it was removed? You can add it on your own if you wish as you repeat the pledge.
A creator is not necessary and as yet has no proof of existing. How can I have equal rights to you, as the constitution guarantees, me if I am an atheist and those supposed rights come from God? Our natural rights do not come from a person a religious deity but from a social idea that we are all guaranteed equal rights by the very fact that we exist as a country ruled by the Constitution.
Precisely WHICH religion does the US Pledge "endorse", epistte? God is recognized in Christianity, BUT God is also acknowledged in two other major monotheistic religions. Have you ever heard of Judaism and Islam?
Since that phrase was added at the urging of the Catholic fraternal group, The Knights of Columbus, it obviously refers to the Abrahamic god of Christianity.
That is a state endorsement of religious belief and one religion in particular.
Russia, Cuba and those other dictatorships collapsed from within because of their inefficiencies. It wasn't your god that caused them to fail.
No one is forced to pay alliance to the U.S. If it doesn't do a thing for you, then, that's on you.
I suggest you read some more.
I read for 1-2 hours every day, but they probably are not subjects that would interest you.
What do you believe I should be reading?
Russia, Cuba and those other dictatorships collapsed from within because of their inefficiencies. It wasn't your god that caused them to fail.
IF:
- Russia's dictatorship "collapsed", why has Putin won every election with only minimal opposition? Why did 1600 protesters just get arrested for peacefully protesting his 4th re-election?
- Cuba's dictatorship "collapsed", why has a Castro ruled since the 1959 and the man who will take Raul's place is known to be merely a Castro puppet?
- Iran's dictatorship "collapsed", why do radical Islamic mullahs control the government?
- North Korea's dictatorship "collapsed", why don't their citizens have food and electricity?
Surely you jest!
I remember it well. When I was 17, I had the privilege of singing "God Bless America" during Half time on the football field. I was at one end of the stadium and the band was at the other end. The American Flags were brought in by the honor guard and, then it began. It was truly an honor.
The D of I and Constitution.
I have a minor in political philosophy and I have read both many times. I would not take part in these decisions of I wasn't sure of my knowledge of both documents.
Would you like to discuss the Articles of Confederation that came between both of those documents?
Get a refresher course!
Do you believe that I should take a refresher course because my opinions do not align with yours?
Have you ever considered the possibility that your political beliefs just might be erroneous?
It should be removed because it's a state endorsement of religious belief and one religion (Christianity)
" Under God" does not endorse Christianity as many faiths believe in a God. If " Under Jesus" was used then it would endorse Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all Americans.
If freedom of religion in America means anything at all, it means that it's just as constitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance - complete with the words 'under God' - as it is to read aloud the Declaration of Independence. They both express the same truth: that our fundamental rights come from God, our creator, and not from government. To suggest that the language of the First Amendment prohibits the simple statement of that truth is to stand the constitution on its head.
Removed for context
Are you sitting in her living room and see what exactly she is reading that you know for a FACT that is what she reads? Or is that simply your own smarmy way of making a nasty personal insulting crack about someone's intelligence compared to your own sense of superior intelligence?
Have you ever considered the possibility that your political beliefs just might be erroneous?
Have you?
Have you ever considered the possibility that your political beliefs just might be erroneous?
Of course, I have. That is why I continue to learn.
Have you done the same?
Did you take the Political Compass quiz in the thread that I created?
Are you sitting in her living room and see what exactly she is reading that you know for a FACT that is what she reads? Or is that simply your own smarmy way of making a nasty personal insulting crack about someone's intelligence compared to your own sense of superior intelligence?
I'm working on this now. Blackwell and Oxford University Press publications are commonly on my nightstand. My family knows if they seek to buy me a gift that gift cards to Barnes and Noble, Amazon or Powells are always welcome.
That was an elegant response to a cheap, ignorant shot.
That was an elegant response to a cheap, ignorant shot.
I try to do my best, even if I am not always successful. It is easy to give in to my sense of sarcasm, but it seldom helps.
Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all Americans.
Atheists are not imposing anything by keeping religion and the state separate, as required by the Establishment Clause. It is religious conservatives who seek to create a quasi-Christian country that uses the bible to trample on the rights of others in an act of tyranny of the majority. You have the right to say that pledge voluntarily but it would not be supported or endosed by the state when it includes a religious idea. Simply remove that religious reference and return the pledge to how it was written and there is no constitutional issue. I still wonder why you would want to pledge allegiance to a government or a flag?
Why did you claim the 3rd paragraph as your own work in an act of plagiarism, instead of setting it off in quotes? I recognized it as soon as I read it because my father was a 4th degree Knight of Columbus?
The Knights of Columbus, a nonprofit Catholic men's fraternal organization, posted the following statements on its website www.kofc.org (accessed Sep. 15, 2006):"If freedom of religion in America means anything at all, it means that it's just as constitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance - complete with the words 'under God' - as it is to read aloud the Declaration of Independence. They both express the same truth: that our fundamental rights come from God, our creator, and not from government. To suggest that the language of the First Amendment prohibits the simple statement of that truth is to stand the constitution on its head."
"Why would anyone want or might possibly be forced to pledge allegiance to a country is beyond me because that act seems quite authoritarian."
Forced? Who is forced? Hey, anarchy is much more fun, so go ahead and spit on your flag, disrespect your national anthem, kill your police, shame your history, insult your armed forces.....hey, it's all legal, it's FREEDOM. So let's see where it all leads to down the road.
Hey, anarchy is much more fun, so go ahead and spit on your flag, disrespect your national anthem, kill your police, shame your history, insult your armed forces.....hey, it's all legal, it's FREEDOM. So let's see where it all leads to down the road.
What is the goal of pledging allegiance to a flag or a government? I find blind patriotism or nationalism even more detestable than religious belief.
With the exception of killing police, all of the other actions are protected free speech. I'd be more supportive of pledging allegiance to society as a whole or the Constitution and all of the rights that it gives us instead of pledging my allegiance to a flag or the government, which often works against the freedom of the people at the behest of the powerful, tradition or the wealthy.
it's FREEDOM. So let's see where it all leads to down the road.
Who is forced? Hey, anarchy is much more fun.
I agree, I choose freedom and I choose America.
However, although I was not physically forced to recite the pledge of allegiance in the school I attended it was basically mandatory.
At that time I felt obligated to follow along... I had not personally chosen to pledge my allegiance to any thing or any one.
In a way I did feel "forced" to "pledge my allegiance"
Now it is my choice. I like that feeling much better !
- Russia's dictatorship "collapsed", why has Putin won every election with only minimal opposition? Why did 1600 protesters just get arrested for peacefully protesting his 4th re-election?
Do you remember the spring of 1989 when the Iron Curtain countries started to fall and ended with the Russian revolution of 1993? For some strange reason that I don't fully understand why the Russian people prefer an authoritarian government, even if it is now an oligarchy under Putin.
Get your lighter out and wave it to the Scorpions,
- Cuba's dictatorship "collapsed", why has a Castro ruled since the 1959 and the man who will take Raul's place is known to be merely a Castro puppet?
Cuba has become far more open to the west, even it is hasn't been as dramatic as the fall of the Eastern Bloc.
- Iran's dictatorship "collapsed", why do radical Islamic mullahs control the government?
The Western-backed Shah fell in January 1979 at the start of the hostage crisis. They went from a secular dictatorship to then having an Islamic theocracy. Iran is now very slowly moving away from the theocracy and seek to open to the west.
- North Korea's dictatorship "collapsed", why don't their citizens have food and electricity?
Kim is opening to the west because he has to in order to survive. China and Russia prop him up now.
The phrase "under God" was not original and only added in the 1950s because of the supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed.
There was a "red scare" and it was deserved. The Soviet Union was challenging the US world wide and it had just stolen the Atomic Bomb from us. Funny how a much less threatening Russia is supposed to be our main fear today.
Why would anyone want or might possibly be forced to pledge allegiance to a country is beyond me because that act seems quite authoritarian.
Everybody should want, though nobody is forced to pledge allegiance to the most humanitarian nation the world has ever known
Funny how a much less threatening Russia is supposed to be our main fear today.
17 Intelligence agency's would disagree with you.
Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers.
This is what radical atheists fear and hate the most.
The continuous bombardment of teavangelical dogma on others doesn't demonstrate much tolerance or respect.
'This is what radical atheists fear and hate the most.'
What's a radical atheist?
What's a radical atheist?
You can start your education by researching Michael Newdow.
okay, sure.
get even with someone for offending your delicate senses?
LMAO!
'You can start your education by researching Michael Newdow.'
Not going to waste my time.
.You might actually learn something and have your "mind" changed by the facts .
I hope you realize the every time you refer to "facts" it reminds the rest of us how you never have any.
Not going to waste my time.
Your comments' lacks of a willingness to expand knowledge never disappoint.
Your comments' lacks of a willingness to expand knowledge never disappoint.
I had to actually vote that up because it's so damn ridiculous that it made me laugh.
'You can start your education by researching Michael Newdow.'
Okay I just looked up Mr. Newdow and he is for the strict separation of church and state including Under God in the pledge and on money.
He's all for a secular government.
So who coined the term radical atheist?
There was a "red scare" and it was deserved. The Soviet Union was challenging the US world wide and it had just stolen the Atomic Bomb from us. Funny how a much less threatening Russia is supposed to be our main fear today.
How did adding the words "under God" to the pledge change anything?
Did you god need to be told, or was he omnipotent and omniscient in the 1950s?
Me too....not that material in school wasn't interesting, but I wanted to learn as much as I could.
.Once I reached 3rd grade I was bored in school because I could read what I wanted and not at the pace the teacher taught.
I was sent to the school psychologist many times because I wasn't paying attention due to the fact that I was bored out of my mind when they took my encyclopedias and other reading material away. The teachers didn't like me.
You can start your education by researching Michael Newdow.
How can someone be a radical atheist? What is radical about having a functional frontal cortex that doesn't permit you to believe in myths?
You only believe in one god out of more than 250 possible gods. I merely believe in one less god than you do. Is that radical?
This is what radical atheists fear and hate the most.
I only fear stupid and illogical people in positions of power. I just want people to make sense but there are too many that do not.
If I had my wish all people would either have a USB port or be WiFi compatible so our software could be updated as knowledge is gained. The only problem with that is that humans would need to run on either Fortran or Linux because the possibility of an entire generation running on either Windows 8 or Vista is terrifying. Not running on a Microsft based OS would lessen the possibility of a surprise attack late on Wednesday night when the updates are being downloaded.
Everybody should want, though nobody is forced to pledge allegiance to the most humanitarian nation the world has ever known
You most certainly are not referring to the US.
We lack universal healthcare and support for higher education. We have the highest rate of incarceration. We do not make the top 10 countries with the best quality of life and we spend the most on our military by a very wide margin and are the warmonger of the world.
If those ideas are what makes a country humanitarian then I don't want to live in your world.
You only believe in one god out of more than 250 possible gods.
Who told you that, epistte, or did you invent that accusation?
17 Intelligence agency's would disagree with you.
That has been debunked! The New York Times had to admit they were full of it! :
The New York Times and Associated Press posted corrections last week walking back the widely reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Donald Trump
Like ive always said, there is a very low standard when the media reports on all things Trump
If those ideas are what makes a country humanitarian then I don't want to live in your world.
I'll buy you a ticket out, any time
If those ideas are what makes a country humanitarian then I don't want to live in your world.
Pack your bags and leave.
Who told you that, epistte, or did you invent that accusation?
There are more than 250 gods that exist. Apparently, I was being quite conservative.
The modern dominant (that is, have the most adherents) religions are monotheistic , but they are few in number. Wikipedia lists 309 Hindu deities. The ancient Hittites claimed to have 1000 deities in their pantheon. So for a rough estimate of the average number of deities per religion, we'll take the average of these 3 figures, giving 440 deities per religion.
How many gods do you pray to and obey?
How did adding the words "under God" to the pledge change anything?
Didn't change world events one way or the other.
Did you god need to be told, or was he omnipotent and omniscient in the 1950s?
You really wouldn't understand the US before the late 60's. You and I are diametrically opposed to what is good and bad
I'll buy you a ticket out, any time
If I decide to move north to Canukistan will you make up the difference between the appraised value of my 2500 sq ft home in Ohio to what a similar home costs in London or Hamilton Ontario? I can easily afford the gas and moving van to either of those cities.
What is your opinion of what makes a country the most humanitarian? Maybe this should be the subject of its own thread at a later date.
You really wouldn't understand the US before the late 60's. You and I are diametrically opposed to what is good and bad
Is that support for racism, homophobia, misogyny and blind obedience to a mythological deity? The US is not going back to that Archie Bunker-esque nirvana. We all get to sit at the table now and have our voice heard equally, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation and disability.
What is your opinion of what makes a country the most humanitarian?
To start off with ending slavery and at the cost of 620,000 Americans and our best President. (Those figures are now considered low by approx 130,000).
The United States Constitution is unique in it's individual protections & rights
Since the late Nineteenth Century the US has had a policy of humanitarian intervention, be it military or aid.
The last great Capitalist Nation which fostered individualism, merit and opportunity for its citizens
So, do tell us, what is the nation that could rival it?
Is that support for racism, homophobia, misogyny and blind obedience to a mythological deity?
You mean the southern democrats? They are gone as is that type of discrimination. Now replaced by progressive hate.
Time for you to give it up.
This conversation is beneath me
How many gods do you pray to and obey?
What I believe or don't believe is none of your business and was the point of my comment 1.2.54 ...
You:
You only believe in one god out of more than 250 possible gods.
Me:
Who told you that, epistte, or did you invent that accusation?
No value. Removed - PRF
They are gone as is that type of discrimination. Now replaced by progressive hate.
The blue south of the 1960s has turned bright red. The bigoted policies of Jeff Sessions, Roy Moore, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond that were supported by the racist Dixiecrats are now the core of the GOP.
No value. Removed - PRF
You have yet to explain what a radical atheist is.
What?
You mean you don't like getting told what YOU believe by someone who doesn't know you?
Why, you have SOME nerve, sir!
The phrase "under God" was not original and only added in the 1950s because of the supposed atheist threat of communism that never existed.
If the phrase "Under God" was added in the 1950's, perhaps the Pledge should be changed again to include the phrase "America, F*%$ Yeah" (Team America: World Police reference) 
To start off with ending slavery and at the cost of 620,000 Americans and our best President. (Those figures are now considered low by approx 130,000).
Many counties ended slavery well before we did and did it without the loss of 1/3 of a million lives. The Civil War is nothing to be proud of. Slavery could have been banned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the 1790s but it would not have been ratified if that was included. The Dredd Scott decision could have ended slavery without bloodshed, but that also didn't happen. The end of slavery in 1865 didn't mean that African Americans we full citizens with equal rights. That didn't happen for 100 years and in some ways, it still hasn't happened.
The people who mention "states rights conservativism" have yet to get over the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse even 150 years later.
You mean you don't like getting told what YOU believe by someone who doesn't know you?
Why, you have SOME nerve, sir!
I know that you meant that comment with dripping sarcasm, and I agree with you. I've tried to politely discuss topics with that one and others many times but they always make it personal and need to include nasty assumptions. I'll never allow them to drag me down to their level.
That's pretty weak sauce.
And for the record, Kim Davis was born in 1965. I sincerely doubt she had any political inclinations until at LEAST 1975-1978
Surely you can better than THTA!
fact is the South remained pretty Democratic until the late 1980's
Good for you.
They haven't got a clue about faith and will never be able to understand it.
They are gone as is that type of discrimination.
Where'd they go? All those ex-Southern Democrats who remained angry and bitter about their right to own slaves being taken away, then their right to segregate being taken away, then their right to ban interracial marriage being taken away and angered at the passage of the civil rights act and voting rights act. Where could all those people who previously made up a majority of those Southern States have gone? It's only been a little over 50 years since the civil rights act was passed when both Southern Democrat and Southern Republican alike voted against it, are you saying they have all turned over a new leaf and become lovers of diversity and minorities and now only hate liberals and progressives? Seems like a bit of a stretch. It took 100 years to progress from the end of slavery to the signing of the civil rights act which all the southern States still voted against, do you really think in just over 50 years those people and their descendants have all given up their racist prejudices and hate?
Seems more likely they are all still there, gnashing their teeth and lashing out at liberals, progressives, Obama, Northern democrats and anyone who they blame for making them feel guilty about being blatant outrageous bigots and racists. If that was the case you'd expect them to be trying very underhanded ways to disenfranchise the minority voters in their States...
"The federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina's wasn't to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions " target African Americans with almost surgical precision ."
"This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)," the judges wrote.So the legislators made it so that the only acceptable forms of voter identification were the ones disproportionately used by white people. " With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans ," the judges wrote . "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess ."
They haven't got a clue about faith and will never be able to understand it.
They also don't understand inclusion and tolerance of those with whom they disagree. The only "acceptable" people are those who march in lock-step agreement with them.
They also don't understand inclusion and tolerance of those with whom they disagree. The only "acceptable" people are those who march in lock-step agreement with them.
You have the protected right to believe, live and worship as you choose. Nobody has ever said or hinted otherwise. I fail to see how my asking how many gods or goddesses you worship is offensive or in any way threatening to you.
Nobody has the constitutional right not to be criticized for their beliefs or actions because that possibility would trample our free speech rights, that are in the very same First Amendment where are religious rights are protected.
What audience are you captivating? It isn't us.
fact is the South remained pretty Democratic until the late 1980's
It just shows that really dumb bigots like Kim Davis didn't realize that most of the Dixiecrats had moved the party to their new home in the GOP long ago. But at least the GOP uses professional bigots like Huckabee and Cruz to corral any stray sheep who wander too far from home.
Nobody has the constitutional right not to be criticized for their beliefs or actions because that possibility would trample our free speech rights,
Making personal Judgments regarding whose constitutional right is more valuable and worthy is a slippery slope and only foolish people take that route.
By the way, do you know that the topic of this article is the US Pledge of Allegiance and is unrelated to US citizens' constitutional rights?
They also don't understand inclusion and tolerance of those with whom they disagree. The only "acceptable" people are those who march in lock-step agreement with them.
i'm not sure why you are describing many of the religious - this seems to be a very popular theme with them, lest you be "condemned to Hell" (among other things like shunned, excommunicated etc) for not believing in their specific God and worshipping as they do.
Making personal Judgments regarding whose constitutional right is more valuable and worthy is a slippery slope
Please point out where epistte has done so.
What audience are you captivating?
I do not understand the reason for your reply because I am not part of this forum to captivate anyone.
Do you believe that I have been elected leader of the lefty progressive contingent of Newstalkers? I do not seek and I will not accept their nomination.
It allows her to feel superior in some way?
I do not seek to be superior to anyone, ever.
Having a reasonable discussion is not an attempt to lower anyone to a level below me. if you think that is then that is your problem because it is certainly not my goal.
Why do you find it necessary to criticize others beliefs?
Most people refer to that action as a debate and a discussion.
Would you prefer that we all sit around drinking kombucha while we sing Kumbaya instead of discussing current events?
You need to keep up and, understand what is actually being said in this.
Try reading this story, it should clear it up for you.
She never said you did. Having trouble killing your own straw man?
Wouldn't do any good.
Are you sure of that?
Debate and discussion?
That is why social media platforms such as Newsvine and now Newstalkers exist. Did you happen to notice the various thread categories on the tracker page? The existence of the reply function is proof that we are to discuss topics and not just agree with each other by liking the thread.
If I wanted to post cat pictures and recipes I would go to Facebook.
The Left loves to smear the Right with cries of racism, but when the Right points out that it's the Democrats who are the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow, the Left always reverts to the claim that both parties "switched" following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and uses the fact that the South is now consistently won by Republicans somehow as "proof."
The South is now a Republican voting bloc — but not because of the mythical party switch.
Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain explains in PragerU's latest video that there are three myths behind the myth that both parties switched after the Civil Rights Act passed.
The first myth is that the Republican Party only began to win the South when they started to pander to Southern white racists in the 1960s, when in fact Republican presidents Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower won Southern states prior to the 1960s. And, just as a reminder, the Republican Eisenhower is known for sending the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, to uphold the Supreme Court's decision to de-segregate schools, against pushback from Democrats. The truth is Republicans were able to win over many Southern voters prior to the '60s without "pandering to racists."
The second myth is that segregationist Democrats bolted to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. In actuality, 20 of the 21 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act remained Democrats and their seats remained in Democratic hands for over 20 years.
The third myth is that the Republican Party has maintained a stronghold on the South with their use of the so-called "Southern Strategy."
"Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968," said Swain. "In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 — 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia."
Swain added, "The truth is, Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act."
Rather than the offensive allegation in the Democrats' convenient, racially-charged narrative, the Republican stronghold in the South today is grounded in the fact that over time, racism has dissipated in the South while conservative values have gained more and more traction.
"In short, history has moved on," said Swain. "Like other regions of the country, the South votes values, not skin color. The myth of the Southern Strategy is just the Democrats’ excuse for losing the South, and yet another way to smear Republicans with the label 'racist.'
I will ask you, what difference does it make to you whether someone else believes something or not regardless of how outrageous those beliefs are? If you want to scrutinize them and decide for yourself to believe or not,,, well three cheers and a whoopie for you but you have no right to criticize me for believing.
you have no right to criticize me for believing.
Of course we do.
Murica.
Consider the ludicrous, nonsensical, childish belief in an afterlife, Arky. Why should it bother anyone? Well, I'm thinking of a certain group of people with an extremely strong belief in this nonsense; the 911 suicide pilots. They believe the exact same nonsense of a spirit world and an afterlife that many other religions do, it's just that they think their god wants them to fly a plane into a building. Your afterlife belief may not inspire you to do anything like that, but your belief in the afterlife nonsense serves to legitimize the same belief in extremist terrorists.
The whole idea of an afterlife devalues the life that we do have. What's the big deal about killing yourself and a couple hundred others when everyone lives forever in the afterlife anyway?
Whatever you or anyone else believes makes no difference to me, as long as you don't try to push your beliefs onto me or into the law or government where it doesn't belong. And I've made no mention of your beliefs. But if you put them out there, then you open yourself up to scrutiny, and anyone can scrutinize if they want.
If you get nominated, please, make an announcement.
but they always make it personal and need to include nasty assumptions.
Classic signs of folks with a massive Inferiority Complex. They tend to be negatively aggressive towards those that are not of like mind. Yep, not always but IMO that's where much that sort of behavior is coming from.
If you get nominated, please, make an announcement.
Those nominations and elections are kept secret from the religious and conservative proletariat.
I do not have the power to inform other progressives unless they are dues paying members in good standing with Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren Rachel Maddow or Amy Goodman.
Yes, thats sarcasm.
And for the record, Kim Davis was born in 1965. I sincerely doubt she had any political inclinations until at LEAST 1975-1978
She may have been listed as a Democrat but her policies are that of the conservative Dixiecrats and not progressive or even moderate in any way. Calling Kim Davis a blue dog democrat is a 1000 meter stretch. After her short stretch in the grey bar hotel, she changed her party affiliation to be a Republican, despite the fact that her beliefs were the very same.
Pack your bags and leave.
You or anyone else do not get to determine who can be an American or what values are supported by public policies. Get over it.
I like informative history lessons, Epi, keep 'em coming. 
You can start your education by researching Michael Newdow.
This is Mr. Newdow's website but there is no mention of radical atheism.
Once again, what is radical atheism if you are going to bring up that claim? How is your life impacted because there is a growing demographic who do not believe in any god?
Once again, what is radical atheism if you are going to bring up that claim?
I'm curious about that too. How is "radical" atheism different from regular atheism?
How is your life impacted because there is a growing demographic who do not believe in any god?
Don't you know, that means we heathens are leading others astray from god and dragging them all to hell with us. Lol
By the way, do you know that the topic of this article is the US Pledge of Allegiance and is unrelated to US citizens' constitutional rights?
The pledge of allegiance has a long history of civil rights questions because of its mandatory participation in public schools and the inclusion of the phrase "under God".
Don't you know, that means we heathens are leading others astray from god and dragging them all to hell with us. Lol
Does that mean that we are now evangelical atheists?
I hope that Grub Hub services Hell because I can't imagine eating the same slop that they serve in that cafeteria for eternity.
The pledge of allegiance has a long history of civil rights questions because of its mandatory participation in public schools and the inclusion of the phrase "under God".
Please stop making things up. There is no "mandatory participation" listed in the US Flag Code and US Constitution. If any teacher, school, or school district (public or private) requires a student to participate, it is in violation of that student's civil rights.
Please stop making things up. There is no "mandatory participation" listed in the US Flag Code and US Constitution. If any teacher, school, or school district (public or private) requires a student to participate, it is in violation of that student's civil rights.
Mandatory participation of the pledge in public schools was common in the past, until the SCOTUS ruled that students had the right to refuse to participate.
Children and young people are often the ones brave enough to challenge the constitutional status quo. In Supreme Court cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , students’ fearlessness pushed the issue of free speech in public schools into the national spotlight. So it was that on June 14, 1943, another such child won a landmark victory for student speech.
The case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , was decided in the shadow of a dispute from three years earlier. Both cases involved members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religion that calls them to not pledge to any symbol or object. The sect’s U.S. leader, Joseph Rutherford, required that followers renounce the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, which sources say came from the contemporaneous annihilation of dissident Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nazi Germany for similar offenses against the Nazi flag.
What is radical atheism?
Does that mean that we are now evangelical atheists?
Whoa, mind blown, lol
I hope that Grub Hub services Hell because I can't imagine eating the same slop that they serve in that cafeteria for eternity.
That I can handle. But hell probably only serves decaf coffee. That's unbearable.
Please stop making things up.
Speaking of which, I'm still curious about what "radical atheism" is?
There is no "mandatory participation" listed in the US Flag Code and US Constitution. If any teacher, school, or school district (public or private) requires a student to participate, it is in violation of that student's civil rights.
This is true. But it also took the SCOTUS to intervene and make that determination.
Mandatory participation of the pledge in public schools was common in the past, until the SCOTUS ruled that students had the right to refuse to participate.
How far back? A LONG time ago. LOL!
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that schools could not compel students to salute the flag or recite the pledge.
The only kids that ever got out of saying the pledge when I was in school (60's) was the JW's, and they left the classroom first.
How far back? A LONG time ago. LOL!
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that schools could not compel students to salute the flag or recite the pledge.
It's true that the practice was prohibited in 1943 but in my liberal community in the mid 1960s it was still common. I was one of the kids who put an end to it here but I suspect the problem was and is far worse in red states.
How far back? A LONG time ago. LOL!
I was in grade school for most of the 1970s and we didn't know and were not told that we could refuse to take part. That idea existed until we were in high school in the early 1980s and learned on our own that we had the right to refuse to participate.
The states of Michigan and Nebraska are trying to bring back mandatory participation in the Pledge of Allegiance by requiring parents to allow their children to refuse but not the children themselves, despite the claim by yourself that this was settled long ago.
The Nebraska Board of Education on Friday unanimously voted to approve a rule change that will make it mandatory for the state’s public schools to set aside time daily for the Pledge of Allegiance.
According to KHAS-TV, the decision, which will affect all students from kindergarten to 12th grade, must still pass through the attorney general’s office and the governor. Both are expected to approve the policy.
The change in question applies to Rule 10 , which governs all Nebraska schools and districts. Failure to comply with the new requirement could put districts at risk of losing their accreditation and therefore state funds, the Sioux City Journal reports.
Engel v. Vitale was more than 50 years ago and people are still complaining about that decision that ended forced prayer in public schools. Conservative politicians are still looking for a loophole to that decision as a way of pandering to their religious conservative voters.
That I can handle. But hell probably only serves decaf coffee. That's unbearable.
I don't want some fussy triple shot, half caf' whipped cream Starbucks nonsense, but I also don't do decaf. I want my coffee, strong, black and freshly made.
Why do you always manage to tie something to religious. Deleted, CoC {SP}We didn't tie it to religions, why do you?
What part eludes you? It is called patriotism. If you don't have any,then,don't blame it onreligion.
because it is a day ending in a "y", and we can't POSSIBLY forego ANY chance to bash God and religion and people who believe in them.
I'm going to be good though. I don't want to go back to newstalkers jail any time soon.
because it is a day ending in a "y", and we can't POSSIBLY forego ANY chance to bash God and religion and people who believe in them.
I'm sorry that you feel that way but there are some of us who prefer the unrelenting glare of logic over religious belief. Skirting the CoC [ph]
Why do you always manage to tie something to religious. Perhaps, therapy would help. We didn't tie it to religions, why do you?
Where in my post do I tie anything to religion? I simply asked a question, for which an answer has not been provided yet.
What part eludes you? It is called patriotism. If you don't have any,then,don't blame it onreligion.
you must be confused. That has nothing to do with my post.
Reminds me of a Far Side strip. This guy was in hell and getting coffee. He said 'The coffee is cold. Man, they thought of everything'
I remember that one. Too funny. I love the Far Side. It's a shame Gary Larson retired from comic strips. I remember him saying a lot of his ideas came to him when he had caffeine. Did you ever read the children's book he wrote after he retired from comic strips?
You at who you are, and the usual posts are expected by now.
Obviously, when your religious beliefs are criticized, and especially when they are shown to be illogical bothers you a great deal. Your reply at 1.2.140 is proof of that emotion. You would not have said it if it were otherwise.
I'm a big fan.
Me too. Even after all these years. Cow themed strips were big with him. I remember one where a cow was grilling burgers and a couple other cows said; "you're sick Jesse! Sick sick sick!" LOL
I had no idea he wrote children's books
I think he wrote only one, "There's a hair in my Dirt!: A Worm's Story." It's actually an educational story, but with a Far Side Spin. It was a best seller too.
Your reply at 1.2.140 is proof of that emotion. You would not have said it if it were otherwise.
Speaking of emotion, notice the hissy fit with the (typical) declaration of impasse. Talk about the proverbial dishing it out but can't take it response.
Removed for context {SP}
If someone is violating the CoC, members should make no comment but rather use the flagging system to report it to the moderators.
(not both)
Please refrain from responding to any post I make, either directly or indirectly. I will show you the same courtesy.
Texan,
I think you misunderstand the purpose of Impasse. It only ends a discussion, not any future interactions.
I guess I do.
All I know is I am forbidden by you from posting on one members' posts here, and wonder what do I need to do to get afforded the same treatment. Please let me know so I can comply with the rules.
'Oh, keep using the freedom of speech, but remember, you only have it because of the Flag of the U.S.A.'
We don't have anything based on a piece of cloth, the Flag of the U.S.A. It's just a symbol.
It's just a symbol.
But since they don't have any true sense of patriotism this is all they have. Thus all the emoting and superficiality about it.
Yes it is the symbol of a country Removed for context "BF"
Here, let me give you what you really need right now: 🏳️
Wouldn't it be nice if all those claiming the flag is "just a symbol" and ha no real meaning would be willing to say that in front of military families with members who died defending that "symbol"?
or if they just shut the fuck up?
We pledge allegiance to the flag, and take an oath to defend the Constitution.
Skirting the no personal attacks rule. Removed. - PRF
She's even harassing you with that in your Guestbook. Check it out.
She loves me and follows me a bit, copies my posts, etc.
All I can hear in my mind is my Dad saying "Don't argue with everyone---( Deleted, Skirting {SP} )
Yes, Dad!
It is not a lol. you are really testing the limits.
That was between me and tex dear. I guess you didn't miss me?
LOL
Wouldn't it be nice if all those claiming the flag is "just a symbol" and ha no real meaning would be willing to say that in front of military families with members who died defending that "symbol"?
You do not defend the flag in the military. You are sworn to defend the US Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The flag is not mentioned in the oath. The flag is merely a visual symbol in cloth.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...
The US Constitution includes the rights of both free speech and religion. Our free speech rights give us the protected right to burn that flag, even when it is very unpopular.
Texas v. Johnson.
The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.
In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint.
The flag is a symbol of the country they represent and fight for and defend.
They are fighting to defend the constitutional rights of others, even when they disagree. My First Amendment views are not subservient to someone else's just because they are wearing the uniform.
Don't try to play the super patriotism card with me.
No one is taking your rights away. No need to be all melodramatic.
No, no one can force you to respect the flag or anything it stands for.
But if you are criticized for your stand or actions, that is their right to do so also.
Personally, I have no use for people who burn our flag.
There are other forms of protest that MIGHT actually accomplish something OTHER than pissing people off.
If you choose not to acknowledge that, then so be it. And if that appears to be "super patriotism" to you, oh well. I can't be responsible for how you feel about it.
Unless someone has taken that oath and put their lives on the line every day for this country and it's people, those that not have absolutely no comprehension of it's true meaning or the potential cost and sacrifices made by said people that have served and are presently serving as well as their families! Also, to a huge number of vets who took that oath, there is no expiration to it and no one has ever relieved me of responsibility for said oath! A good day to all.
Your oath was to uphold the Constitution.
Thank you for your service.
I am amazed by the people who have to have their military oath explained to them.....
I have taken that oath and served my country. I know that the flag is a symbol and that's all it is. I won't die for a piece of cloth, but I will die for the principles that this country was founded upon
Your oath was to uphold the Constitution.
He didn't say it wasn't.
Then I must assume he is on the side of those who defend freedom of expression, even when some people say that which offends us.
And you defend his freedom to express his feelings. I assume.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: 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.
Some forget "for which it stands" part. Is not the Constitution the foundation of the US? Taking a pledge or oath to uphold the Constitution seems no different.
And you defend his freedom to express his feelings. I assume.
You don't need to assume. Read my comments.
I grew up saying this every school morning. I taught it to my two children and my four grandchildren before they ever started school. I am fortunate to have grown up in and still live in small rural community in AZ that still has the students repeat it every school day. I learned first hand the true meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. I am a retired/disabled veteran who served my country honorably in uniform for 20 years that included two wars. I love my country dearly and have shed my blood for it and no one, especially some of those posting above, can ever take that away from me!
I love my country dearly and have shed my blood for it and no one, especially some of those posting above, can ever take that away from me!
Why in the world would you think anyone wants to?
I was speaking more in a figurative sense. On more than one occasion I have had individuals tell me our military is a overpaid and overcompensated anachronism that is nothing special, so you can see where that might be a little upsetting to vets. hope that answers your question.
I don't have an issue with the "under god" part, with the only caveat being that it implies that we have a national religion, which we don't.
I think the "under god" part is a rather blatant Establishment violation even if a nominally symbolic one, but as you can see even a symbolic violation has confused many people about whether our government is actually secular. But if the phrase is to be allowed shouldn't it really read "under various and sundry gods"?
I think that the phrase also reveals that Christian extremists in particular are rather desperate to have their superstitions propped up and endorsed by the state. The Pilgrims, Quakers and many other sects would have found that deeply offensive.
I forgot about that. Good catch.
A disagreement between a former U.S. Marine and a Quaker woman about the Pledge of Allegiance has sparked discussion about whether all county board and commission meetings should begin with the recitation.
The debate originated among members of the Frederick County Human Relations Commission, where a vote was tied about whether to open monthly meetings with the pledge. Among those opposed to requiring the tribute was commission member Annette Breiling, who said her Quaker faith reserves expressions of allegiance for God rather than for flag or country.
But Chris Huckenpoehler, a former Marine who sits on the 15-member human relations commission, was so troubled by his colleagues’ reluctance that he offered his resignation to county commissioners Sunday.
"But if the phrase is to be allowed shouldn't it really read "under various and sundry gods"?"
Would Zeus qualify? How about THIS "god"?
Even if there's only one adherent, minorities have rights, don't they?
Would Zeus qualify? How about THIS "god"?
Yes.
But some people would object.
They want us to be under their god, not the various gods of non-Abrahamic pantheons.
The Pilgrims, Quakers and many other sects would have found that deeply offensive.
Based upon the all the texts I have been able to find and by just about any interpretations of those texts it seems clear that the God of Abraham by any of His innumerable names would have abhorred and been greatly offended by His Name being uttered in a pledge of allegiance to an earthly nation of men or writ upon men's dirty temporal money. There is that to consider but then I never got any good answer as to why it is so...
Did they? Don't think so.
Yes they do. Lots of Christians object to God's name being invoked in the pledge and writ upon money.
"Thou Shalt Not Utter The Name of The Lord Thy God In Vain". Period. End of Story. So, excuse away...
It is plain by any interpretation of the Bible God would never want His Name used for earthy purposes...
Not taking God into consideration, Christ would be appalled his name is abused for political advantage.
One Tin Soldier by The Original Cast
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor.
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven
You can justify it in the end
For their won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the Judgement Day
On the bloody morning after
One tin soldier rides away"...
Don't think so.
So, you don't know why the Pilgrims left England, then.
It is plain by any interpretation of the Bible God would never want His Name used for earthy purposes...
In fact the Pilgrims were so strict on that issue that they didn't even allow marriages to be solemnized in a church. They understood that such things were civil matters and thus should not be mixed with their god.
Yes and that the gop routinely invokes the names of God and Christ, in vain, to advocate for wars and for torturing people and for state sponsored executions and against helping the least among us seem to plainly be ungodly and definitely not Christlike. The gop platforms always use the Name of God to advocate for political positions Christ would have abhorred. The gop even chriticizes the Democrats for not slathering their platforms with invocations of God and Christ. Can anyone show me one line of scripture that indicates God or Christ would support the gop's political agenda?
They are separate.
Not according to the GOP which not only repeatedly invokes their bigoted "god" in their platform but also seeks to deny basic civil rights to certain minorities based on their primitive superstitions.
That's just not the whole story.
Really? What do you think is the "whole story"?
Perry, I found this which seems to put the "under god" part of the pledge in perspective.
What is the 'Pledge of Allegiance'?
In 1892, a minister named Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge (which means a promise or a vow) of Allegiance (which means loyalty or faithfulness) in order to promote patriotism, love of country and respect for the flag. It was originally designed for schools, to be taught to children. In the original version, it said nothing about God. In fact, it was meant to be concise and not take very long to say. It was also not said with the hand on the heart, but with a salute. Here is what Rev. Bellamy wrote: " I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." But as time went by, several changes were made to the pledge. The last one occurred during the early 1950s, an era of McCarthyism and the Cold War, when the words "under God" were added to show that America is a God-fearing nation, as opposed to the Soviet Union, our enemy of that time, which espoused a belief in atheism. Today, the pledge, which is said with the hand over the heart, reads: 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.
"In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States of America and of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted as the nation's motto in 1956 as a replacement or alternative to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.[1]
I don't why this cropped up in my thoughts! At 7 in the morning? Give me a break!
This quickly caught my attention, I also for no apparent reason woke up this morning thinking about the pledge of allegiance. Only my thoughts went like this.
(I actually wrote this down and saved it much earlier today.) Funny that now I find it so relevant. Thanks.
................................................................
"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."
"I pledge allegiance to president trump of the United States of America, and to his Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all who agree."
...................................................................
I will always and only chose the first pledge !!
The original, by Francis Bellamy, an ordained minister didn't need any religious tampering. It's the one I also say whenever the occasion arises. But I do wish the object of our allegiance would be to the Constitution of the United States and not the flag. Our current chief executive seems to think he should be the object of allegiance rather than that document which he seems determined to trash.
But I do wish the object of our allegiance would be to the Constitution of the United States and not the flag.
Yep. Even though I find such compelled loyalty oaths offensive and reeking of reactionary nationalism, if there's one thing in that oath which warrants respect it's the constitution.
.
Our current chief executive seems to think he should be the object of allegiance rather than that document which he seems determined to trash.
Bingo.
Has there ever been a POTUS in office who did not want American citizens to pay allegience to the elected government?
Has there ever been a POTUS in office who did not want American citizens to pay allegience to the elected government?
Buzz, I'm not following you around on purpose. I'm just responding to posts.
IMO: yes all presidents do and should want the American citizens to have allegiance to the elected government. We all should want that.
The difference with this president is he seems to believe the allegiance should be to the president not the government that the president works for.
Also IMO: That attitude is dangerous to our style of government.
I like having 537 "bosses" verse one "Boss" running this country.
PS: Hope you are having a nice day.
I'm having a great day - it's warm and sunny and I'm happy.
"The difference with this president is he seems to believe the allegiance should be to the president not the government that the president works for.
Also IMO: That attitude is dangerous to our style of government."
You say allegiance should be to 537 and not to one. Then why was allegiance required to Obama when he "trumped" the 537 by personally taking the nuclear deal to the UN instead of paying attention to the wishes of the 537? Wasn't that "dangerous to [y]our style of government."?
As well, not being an American and unfamiliar with all your government's laws", can you explain what an "Executive Order" is, and why it is contrary to "allegiance" to 537?
Then why was allegiance required to Obama when he "trumped" the 537 by personally taking the nuclear deal to the UN instead of paying attention to the wishes of the 537?
My allegiance has never been to any one president. IMO they all have and will make mistakes and many have and will abuse the power granted to the office. Men make mistakes. its called being human. Obama, Bush, Clinton, trump, ect.. ect..
By the same token I also believe each president has and will do some good for the country. It's inherent to the position.
My concern these days is for the long term direction each president is taking the office and it's power. And yes my concern did start long ago, however trumps blatant style has egasterated my concern.
The thing I'm most confused about when it comes to American attitudes, is the disrespect for the flag. In my opinion, I always believed that a flag was a symbol that represented a whole nation on a permanent basis. That is, it does not represent a temporary government of the nation, or the officials of that government, or the laws of that nation, or even the people of that nation, but the NATION, the COUNTRY the MOTHERLAND. And seeing disrespect for one's nation's flag, as I see in the USA, and ignoring the burning of that flag by terrorist nations and organizations, Is what I find difficult to comprehend. Freedom of speech? IMO it goes too far if it allows disloyalty to the NATION, for I see such people as traitors and should be treated as such. I'm a Canadian, and even though I despise what Trudeau and his government are doing to my country, I love my country and will always be loyal to it, but not necessarily to a temporary government or its officials. My maple leaf flag stands for my COUNTRY, not for the present or any temporary administration of it. The same attitude can be considered for the National Anthem. Canada is making it even more inclusive by changing the line "In all our sons command" to "In all of us command".
I'm most confused about when it comes to American attitudes, is the disrespect for the flag.
Understandably so. It seems we have many "feeling" here in America these days about the American flag. Why. I dont know for sure but as an american I will venture a "guess"
Perhaps the American flag has been seen in to many "bad" circumstances by the masses due to the media here that that has confused the meaning to many. ?
Personally I have always respected the American flag but with the understanding it is just a symbol of what America is.
The freedom is and has always been where my true allegiance lays.
That's why when I "feel "that threatened I pay attention...
Also why I don't ever intend to "pledge my loyalty" to any one president and dont think any American ever should.. EVER !
We find freedom to be more important than loyalty, and forced loyalty to be false loyalty. If I must pretend to respect the flag, and by extension my country, that is neither freedom nor true loyalty. It's lip service. We respect actual freedom more than a symbol of that freedom, and our laws regarding freedom of speech reflect that.
That being said, I would never burn a flag myself, except to retire it, and always stand and recite the Pledge, omitting the words "under God".
We find freedom to be more important than loyalty, and forced loyalty to be false loyalty. If I must pretend to respect the flag, and by extension my country, that is neither freedom nor true loyalty. It's lip service. We respect actual freedom more than a symbol of that freedom, and our laws regarding freedom of speech reflect that.
You stated that core ideal far more eloquently than I could have.
Absolute agreement.
You stated that core ideal far more eloquently than I could have.
I find you to be eloquent, even under attack, as here, but thank you.
Even your American "freedom" has its limitations, some greater and some lesser than other countries. but it is limited. So you pay tribute to YOUR freedoms and if NT is a microcosm of America, you fight over them. Not every American interprets or accepts "freedom" in the same way, but you have a NATION that your flag represents and that NATION does not change, notwithstanding changes in government, notwithstanding changes in laws (and the SCOTUS is permitted to change them), notwithstanding the changes in the limitations of that very "freedom" you venerate. Personally, my loyalty to my NATION is NOT FORCED, and in fact CANNOT be forced. That is where "Love it or leave it" comes in, and if you think loyalty to the USA is FORCED, then why the hell don't you leave it?
"Personally I have always respected the American flag but with the understanding it is just a symbol of what America is."
Then what is America if not "The land of the free", so the flag is a symbol of that very freedom, and if so, why does it earn such disrespect?
Even your American "freedom" has its limitations,
Most of those limitations have to do with safety or not infringing on the freedoms of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, is not protected speech. Burning a flag that does not belong to oneself, or in an area where the fire spreads beyond control, would also not be protected speech, as it would violate others' property rights and be a safety concern.
Disallowing the criticism of our country would be treasonous to the ideals on which we were founded.
"Disallowing the criticism of our country would be treasonous to the ideals on which we were founded."
In what way does anyone want to criticize their country? I see nothing wrong with criticizing the governing entities of a country, or the judiciary of a country or the laws of a country or even certain people of a country, but what would you criticize about your "country"? It doesn't have enough mountains, or ocean front? It's not big enough? It's not located in the right location in the world? That is the point I'm trying to make, is that your flag symbolizes your COUNTRY, a geographical area. I agree that being critical of your government, your judiciary, even your constitution is a necessary freedom.
I suppose we're working from different notions of the meaning of "country". I see it as more than a geographic location. I see "country" as being composed of both the land and its people, including those in government. I'm much more likely to feel loyalty to people than to soil.
That is the point I'm trying to make, is that your flag symbolizes your COUNTRY, a geographical area. I agree that being critical of your government, your judiciary, even your constitution is a necessary freedom.
The flag is a visual symbol of the government and not the geography that is bordered or ruled. This might be an unpopular idea but I do not consider myself to be a citizen of the political country but instead of a citizen of the world. I see political borders to be unnatural and hopefully, they will disappear so we can live as a global community instead of many countries fighting for their own political, social and monetary benefit at the expense of others.
If we are not willing to criticize the government and even the society in which we live for the problems around us that are not being solved in a way that benefits the greatest number or protecting the rights of the weak, the poor and the minorities, the country will stagnate instead of progressing as it needs to do.
I see "country" as being composed of both the land and its people, including those in government.
I agree.
"I do not consider myself to be a citizen of the political country but instead of a citizen of the world. I see political borders to be unnatural and hopefully, they will disappear so we can live as a global community instead of many countries fighting for their own political, social and monetary benefit at the expense of others."
I gather then that you are a disciple of George Soros.
I gather then that you are a disciple of George Soros.
Where do you get that idea? I am no more a disciple of Soros than I am of Hillary Clinton.
Is Soros some sort of mythical figure that all progressives secretly have a dusty shrine to in the corner of the basement?
"The land of the free", so the flag is a symbol
I guess we respect and revere freedom more than the symbol itself.
That's the wonderful thing about freedom, it really doesn't require a symbol. Freedom is a state of being.
.
Damn...... that sounds so "70's"
Now where is that lava lamp ? .......
I was mistaken, I thought George Soros' New World Order erased borders, but what it does is put one world legal system to control the world. Perhaps I should liken your concept better to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Somehow, I think your idealism is just going to blow in the wind.
LOL, I never had a Lava Lamp, but my son did.
A lot of people are unable to conceptualize things ethereal, such as a "state of being" or a "concept", and need a symbol that they can grasp to symbolize what they don't normally understand, (sorry for the repetitive language).
I was mistaken, I thought George Soros' New World Order erased borders, but what it does is put one world legal system to control the world.
Since when is George Soros anything but an eccentric billionaire?
Since when is the New World Order a liberal concept, when the first mention of it was H. W. Bush, unless he was a super-duper secret "deep state" liberal?
The World Court in the Hague has very little actual power, except for a few European states.
Why would you think that I would in any way support the ideas of a Brave New World? It doesn't appear that you understand me or my ideas in any way.
Why would I want to get rid of national borders and then support a worldwide authoritarian government? That is the opposite of what I support.
That throw away Soros assumption was lots better than Buzz assuming you approved bombing Jewish children. Why must disagreement with Buzz results in unfounded, unfair and unwarranted assumptions on his part? That certainly is not the way to win an argument where I come from and would likely result in a black eye in person. I don't know about you but as for me that lousy debate tactic has gotten really olde already...
Has there ever been a POTUS in office who did not want American citizens to pay allegience to the elected government?
I think there should be a change in this, it should read, "Has there ever been a POTUS in office who did not wish American citizens to pay allegiance to the offices of the government", the difference being that it isn't to one man or, one office. What Trump wants is for the people to be loyal to him and, him alone, not the government, if that is what he wanted, to be supportive of the government he wouldn't be trying to get loyalty pledges from people in his administration, the oaths they take at their swearing in would be enough for him.
The thing I'm most confused about when it comes to American attitudes, is the disrespect for the flag.
Most Americans don't and the minority who do are free to do so. Such is the beauty of what we've got going here but i must admit.
I have a very difficult time not defending it when i see the flag being disrespected.
And Off Topic we go........I know, I know, you just can't help yourself.
Your response is absolutely correct and what I have been trying to say. Particularly, our Flag does not just represent an individual but our Country.
A lot of people are unable to conceptualize things ethereal, such as a "state of being" or a "concept", and need a symbol
True and those are the ones who "need" a flag to represent freedom.
Many of us do not "need" that symbol, freedom is ingrained in us to the core.
To each their own..... Thankfully, freedom covers that.
Has there ever been a POTUS in office who did not want American citizens to pay allegience [sic] to the elected government?
Oh, my. You really don't know anything about the U.S.
The thing I'm most confused about when it comes to American attitudes, is the disrespect for the flag.
The problem comes from the fact that so many people who wrap themselves in it have no qualms about trashing our Constitution so it is often used as more a symbol for hypocrisy than true patriotism.
I thought George Soros' New World Order erased borders, but what it does is put one world legal system to control the world.
That anti-semitic smear has been around in one form or another for 2,000 years. Looks like it's a permanent feature of certain people, not a bug.
And Off Topic we go........I know, I know, you just can't help yourself.
Maybe you should take it up with the author of the this thread since this is the first line of his article is the revised pledge of allegiance. Or did you not even bother to read that?
A lot of people are unable to conceptualize things ethereal, such as a "state of being" or a "concept", and need a symbol that they can grasp to symbolize what they don't normally understand, (sorry for the repetitive language).
I prefer to think most can think more abstractly than that, when necessary. If not, I'd consider that to be a "them" problem.
"The land of the free", so the flag is a symbol of that very freedom,
I really am amazed that even a Canadian doesn't understand this (since there's not nearly so much phony posturing there about its flag) but let me try to help you get this. The very symbol of freedom includes even the right to even abuse that flag in protest. Whether that means burning it which seems to be the favored way of the radical left or inappropriately flying it upside down which it is for the radical right (along with literally wrapping it around themselves at rallies or whatever they call their mobs meetings--kleagles, maybe).
That throw away Soros assumption was lots better than Buzz assuming you approved bombing Jewish children. Why must disagreement with Buzz results in unfounded, unfair and unwarranted assumptions on his part? That certainly is not the way to win an argument where I come from and would likely result in a black eye in person. I don't know about you but as for me that lousy debate tactic has gotten really olde already...
I try to be as polite as possible. I've never understood the conservative fascination with George Soros as some omnipotent liberal boogeyman. The email I get from Move-On.org is automatically sent to my spam file. Kos' and Huffpo get the same treatment. Only rarely do I open spam email from ActBlue.
I am supposed that I have not been accused of being an anti-semite because I criticize the policies of the state of Israel.
"I am supposed that I have not been accused of being an anti-semite because I criticize the policies of the state of Israel."
I assume you meant "surprised" and not "supposed". And just who has accused you of being an anti-Semite? Anti-Semitism is entirely off topic in this article. Perhaps Atheist brought it up as a smear against a member here cleverly not naming whom he was wrongly accusing.
By the way, since you made that statement, who has accused you of anti-Semitism because you criticize the policies of the state of Israel? The Ottawa Protocol definition of anti-Semitism, copied by the US Department of State and in the working papers of the EU, specifically points out that fair criticism of Israel, that which does not indicate a double standard differing Israel from any oher state is NOT anti-Semitism. If that exception did not exist, then even I can rightly be accused of anti-Semitism because over the years on NV and here on NT I have criticized the Israeli Government, Netanyahu, the Israeli Judiciary, the IDF, the settlers, and the Ultra-Othodox Haradim.
"That anti-semitic smear has been around in one form or another for 2,000 years. Looks like it's a permanent feature of certain people, not a bug.
How did the statement you refer to as a "smear" have ANYTHING to do with anti-Semitism? Did you bring that up because you have some kind of sensitivity about anti-Semitism?"
"Why would you think that I would in any way support the ideas of a Brave New World?"
Your statement...
"I do not consider myself to be a citizen of the political country but instead of a citizen of the world. I see political borders to be unnatural and hopefully, they will disappear so we can live as a global community instead of many countries fighting for their own political, social and monetary benefit at the expense of others."
...DOES reflect the idealistic "homogenous" world citizens of Huxley's Brave New World. I CONFESSED that I misunderstood Soros' support for New World Order - but that doesn't seem to be good enough.
You said this...
"I see political borders to be unnatural and hopefully, they will disappear so we can live as a global community instead of many countries fighting for their own political, social and monetary benefit at the expense of others."
...and then this....
"Why would I want to get rid of national borders..."
I must admit that you confused me with that inconsistency.
It appears to me that I have a lot more respect for the American flag and anthem than a lot of Americans, even though I'm a Canadian. Maybe I just DON'T understand. Funny thing is that when I was a teenager I had a girl friend who lived in New YorK City, and she bought me a book called "Understanding the Americans" but I no longer have it, probably lost it years ago. I think I should try to get another copy of it to read.
Not sure what to tell you, Buzz. Most of us respect both the anthem and the flag. But we respect even more the ideals they represent, and foremost among those is freedom, including the freedom to disrespect. If we can't demonstrate disrespect, we aren't free.
What I have trouble with is that if, as you say, the flag and anthem represent the American ideals including freedom foremost, then by disrespecting the flag and anthem you are in fact disrespecting those ideals, including freedom. Why is it even necessary to show that you have the freedom to disrespect what you respect the most? It just seems illogical and hypocritical to me.
Because some people don't respect the US, for various reasons. They have the freedom to express that disrespect, and if they want to draw attention to their cause, well, burning flags and so forth will draw attention. Not the attention they want, perhaps, but attention. I may disagree with them, but their freedom is more important than my (or anyone else's) agreement.
Frankly, I find a lot of the outrage over disrespect of the flag to be manufactured, anyway. I routinely see flags that are tattered still flying, and they shouldn't be. I've seen the flag carried horizontally, which is incorrect. I've seen US flags flown side-by-side and at the same height as the Confederate flag. I've seen flags either left at full staff when we are supposed to be in mourning, or left at half staff when we aren't. Some folks really want to get into a frenzy about others' disrespect of the flag, while they either ignore, rationalize, or are oblivious to their own faux pas.
How about the tattered flags flying over car dealerships or attached to cars? That's pretty disrespectful, IMO
How about the tattered flags flying over car dealerships or attached to cars? That's pretty disrespectful, IMO
But, but, but, PATRIOTISM.
That sort of "patriotism" doesn't impress me.
Why is it even necessary to show that you have the freedom to disrespect what you respect the most?
I asked a question of a protester during the '60's when I saw them burn a flag during a protest I was near when I was a kid, the answer I got back made some sense. "The flag represents the country we are currently in, the one that loves war for wars sake, discriminates against a large part of the population and, has a corrupt president, when these things are corrected we will return to respecting the flag because, the country will be worth respecting".
Yep, I've never been impressed by it either, Patriotism for profit isn't impressive at all.
Ditto. They're commercializing patriotism, but are too cheap to even do that right.
Well, then, what do you need?
Well, then, what do you need?
I need a country that allows me the freedom to be myself. A flag and just words aren't enough. And I sure dont need one man or person making all the rules either like the current president seems to want and believe he has the right and power to do.
I liked having 537 people in charge of this government, I think that was what was intended from the start.
I see that slipping away now.
now it's trump's way or the highway for many politicians. Where does this end ?
You can be yourself.
I believe the executive order thing started with Obama.
President Obama didn't invent Executive Orders......
Harry Truman integrated the Armed Services with a stroke of a pen. He also made the Air Force a separate department from the Army with a stroke of the pen.
How did the statement you refer to as a "smear" have ANYTHING to do with anti-Semitism?
So, you don't know that "one world" or "new world order" conspriracy theorists and antisemitism have a very large overlap on the Venn diagram of such ideas? You seem to be either seriously naive about the world or have kept yourself deliberately "unaware" of the history of, at least, antisemitism. One of the favorites of the Nazis was that Jewish bankers were out to rule the world. I think that myth (and others such as blood libels) in the older oral tradition of antisemitism found a much wider constituency after the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion appeared in the early 20th C. So linking a Jewish billionaire to some cockamamie idea of elimination of all national boundaries fits right in with that tradition.
By the way, the original Great Seal of the United States commissioned in 1782 had two sides. This is the "obverse":
Note the familiar "Out of Many, One" motto (which is still one of the many official mottoes). Here's the "reverse":
The Latin on the top translates as: [It] "approves [our] enterprise," with "It" being Providence. But the Latin at the bottom is what I really want to draw your attention to. It translates as: "New Order for the Ages," in effect New World Order. That side of the seal is printed on every one-dollar bill by the way. The founders of this country apparently felt they were establishing a New World Order with its creation.
Maybe you will now think twice before trying to describe Jewish billionaires with ancient antisemitic libels. Ignorance of that relationship can no longer be used as an excuse by you.
I believe the executive order thing started with Obama.
It did not. By a long, long way:
Obama issued fewer executive orders on average than any president since Cleveland
But your false belief is understandable considering the huge amount of rightwing lying about Everything Obama.
Why do you connect your name with words in Hebrew? I'm not putting you down for it, I'll leave putting people down to your excellent competence at it.
I believe the executive order thing started with Obama.
LOL. We have another Faux News viewer who skipped high school civics.
God is mentioned in the D of I, but not in the Constitution. It is said that the same organizers were not present at both. Perhaps, the new delegates were less religious than the authors of the D of I.
Perhaps, the new delegates were less religious than the authors of the D of I.
Jefferson was not referring to the Abrahamic god of the Christian faith in the declaration. The fact that he was not a trinitarian Christian proves that idea because if he was he would not have the same rights as believers would. There is no mention Jesus or Christianity in any of those documents for a very good reason.
In stating that people’s rights were given to them by their creator, the Continental Congress endowed those rights with a legitimacy that knows no parallel in mortal sources. What God has given to man is not enjoyed at the sufferance of any monarch or government. Liberty is the inviolable birthright of all. The right of revolution proclaimed by the Declaration flows directly from this notion of inviolability: it is to secure people’s divinely endowed and unalienable rights that governments, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” are established. The people consequently have the right and indeed the duty to alter or abolish a form of government that becomes tyrannical.
The Declaration contains several other references to a higher power. The introduction states that the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” entitle the American people to a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. In the conclusion, Congress appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for the rectitude of its intentions and professes its “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” In each case, reference to a deity serves to validate the assertion of independence.
The genius of the Declaration is the inclusive way the divine is given expression. The appellations of God are generic. Adherents of traditional theistic sects can read the words “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge,” and understand them to mean the god they worship. The claims made on numerous Christian websites attest to this. Yet opponents of dogma read those same words and see an embracive, non-sectarian concept of divinity. This is no small testimony to the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers. All Americans could support the Revolution and independence. All can regard their rights as unalienable, their liberty as inviolable.
This idea drives the point home very clearly that the US is not a Christian nation.
There is no state religion and Article VI of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The founders went to great lengths to strictly separate church and state and they could not have gone any farther without violating the freedom of religious exercise.
And, why to you think that is so? Use your brain and not "stuff" that anyone can goggle.
The US was created as a haven for religious freedom for all people and not just the Christian majority. The founders were well aware of the civil rights abuses that were guaranteed to occur when the state and an authoritarian government intermingled and put in place a wall of separation to prevent that from happening.
Even when there is a Christian majority government the various sects fight to set one belief above the other. The Sunni-Shia-Kurd battles of the Middle East, as well as the Protestant-Catholic "troubles" of Ireland, are examples. The only stable government with equal religious rights for all people regardless of belief or lack thereof has to be a government that is kept absolutely secular.
Those are quotes and must be set off to denote that they are the intellectual work of others.
I have a decent memory but I cannot recite by memory 100-word quotes of 200+ years ago. I know that the historical statement exists and understand the synopsis of the idea but I cannot recite it verbatim.
You're much too hard on yourself, and smarter than you think you are.
I appreciate the compliment that you and others have told me, but I wish that I could believe that to be true because I do not feel significantly more intelligent than others.
What do you have against research, Mags?
You goggle a lot.
Its called GOOGLE. Goggles are something you wear to protect your eyes.
You goggle a lot.
Is my research a problem for you?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
I'd like to know what was said because I cannoty imagine Devangelical being hostile toward me.
Use your brain and not "stuff" that anyone can goggle.
Ok, here's what my brain tells me about the reason for separation of church and, state. Kings, Queens, rulers all have one thing in common, which connects church and, state, they think they have a "divine right to rule", given to them by god and, that no matter what they decide, they are right and, everyone else is wrong because god has given them wisdom to make the right choice for everyone, that is why England ended up with the Magna Carta and, France and, Russia had a revolution and, why we ended up separate from England, with a Constitution that separated church from state so we don't end up with a ruler who thinks they have a "divine right to rule".
Absolutely.
Our Country is adamantly against there being a State religion. I have such respect for our Country....they took on England and won.
.they took on England and won.
Believe it or, not, that wasn't all that hard back then, armies and, navy's of that time and, today rely on supply's to make it, with a good supply line the military fails, back then there wasn't a good supply line, storms could sink ships and, blockades could make it hard to get supplies in to the army when the army was on foreign soil, which the U.S. at that time was, even if it was under the shaky control of the British. What was more of a problem for us back then was holding onto what we won and, making it more than it was, that required money, something we didn't have that much of.
Am I the only one who thinks it's rather stupid, not to mention downright creepy to make children recite a pledge of political allegiance when they're too young to truly understand what political or national allegiance even is?
I remember doing that as a child in elementary school and not thinking twice about it. I didn't know a damn thing about geopolitics, it was just something we did every morning when school started. It wasn't until I was an adult and had a better understanding of what a nationalistic political pledge is that the childhood, in-school practice started bugging me and actually creeping me out.
We should probably stop making little kids do that.
While we're at it, let's stop making everyone sit through prayers and/or the national anthem at the beginning of sporting events, which are entertainment products purchased in the private marketplace by private citizens, not religious events or political/governmental rallies.
let's stop making everyone sit through prayers and/or the national anthem at the beginning of sporting events,
These big sporting events are major recruiting times for the military. So of course there will be flag pledges, national anthem singing and (sometimes) military fly-overs.
These big sporting events are major recruiting times for the military.
It always looks to me like the vast majority of people attending games are much older than the teenagers and early twenty-somethings the military is looking for.
Crowds at baseball games, for example, tend to be heavily middle-age and older.
Regardless, it might have seemed like a good and patriotic thing to do during the big wars, I think they even made people stand for the anthem at the movies during WW2 (which we no longer do, by the way), but today it's just an annoying ritual whose time has long passed IMO.
Do you know that on military bases the anthem is played before the movie starts at the base theater?
Yes, and they have to stand and salute a video of the flag flying on the screen while it's playing. Or rather, I know they used to have do that. No idea if they still do today. It's been a long time since I've been in military theater.
That's actually one reason I almost never went to see a movie on post. It was just so lame. Not quite as lame as having to stop your car, get out, face in the direction of the post's main flag and salute if you were unfortunate enough to be within ear shot of Reveille or Retreat being played as the flag was being raised or lowered every day. That one really takes the cake. That's a special kind of annoyance that makes you want to break things.
But that's the military, part of the government, not the public civilian marketplace. They do all kinds of silly, mind-numbingly repetitive, ritualistic stuff in the military.
It looks like hardly anyone has to shine boots anymore, though. So I guess that's one improvement over yesteryear, at least until they change the uniform back again to smooth leather instead of those desert suedes, which probably won't happen until the main global threats shift away from the desert regions.
But I digress...
I don't find it an annoyance to stop for Reveille and Retreat every day. I only find it an annoyance when I have my window rolled down, the radio turned down and I still can't hear it and get pulled over for not stopping. Oh...and when Reveille gets stuck in my head and I whistle it the rest of the day.
You don't have to get out of your car, you only have to stop and stay still while it's playing. And I never minded standing for it before a movie started, either. We recently went to a bowling tournament and they played the anthem before the bowling started.
I don't find it an annoyance to stop for Reveille and Retreat every day.
Really? Wow. That got old for me really quick. Every last person I knew found it annoying. People would go out of their way to avoid it if they could.
Are you in the military now? Why are you having to do it every day?
You don't have to get out of your car, you only have to stop and stay still while it's playing.
That was not my experience. I probably wouldn't have minded that as much.
We obviously served in different eras. I always felt it to be honorable and part of my duty to country to participate in Reveille and Retreat.
i still do when I visit a base
My spouse is retired Air Force so I occasionally go on base to drop off/pick him up from work (he works on base). Since I broke my ankle last August we've been taking separate cars.
I never minded it, either, when I was in the Air Force. It's just one of those things you do without thinking about it.
I always felt it to be honorable and part of my duty to country to participate in Reveille and Retreat.
Are you telling me you were never in a hurry to get somewhere, got caught by it, and weren't cussing under your breath even a little?
Never one of those "Damn, if I'd only left 2 minutes earlier" kind of moments?
I'd actually find that a little hard to believe.
Ah, the Air Force. That's probably why you didn't mind the little BS things very much.
I always thought you guys had it made. I was never on an AF base I didn't like. Even the small ones. Maybe it was just because I thought the planes were so cool, I dunno. From what I could tell, you had about the best quality of life of any of the branches. Best housing, best facilities, best equipment, a base in Las Vegas...
I was on the Nevada Test Site a couple of times and I remember my young and partying self being soooo envious of everyone stationed at Nellis. I was like, "Are you freaking kidding me? VEGAS?"
Why do you think I joined the Air Force and not the Army? I like the good life. LOL!
I've never been on too many army posts but I will take the worst AFB over the best fort any day.
Why do you think I joined the Air Force and not the Army? I like the good life. LOL!
I, unfortunately, wasn't thinking about anything like that at the time. For some reason I had this boyhood Cold War fascination with the Army that never went away, so when the time came I couldn't really help myself. It was almost like I was subconsciously compelled to go that way. I didn't do it for a job and I didn't even consider it a job. It was just some weird thing I had to get out my system. In hindsight I kind of wish that boyhood fascination had been with the Air Force instead. But oh well, I guess I had a pretty good time over all. Plenty of BS involved, but there was also plenty of good hard partying to make up for it.
Nope, the only thing more important than duty to country is my family and serving God
My husband was an administrative specialist but he worked in intel during his first assignment at Eielson. It was during the height of the Cold War and he has some pretty cool stories. I will always believe that the Air Force is where it's at all the time, it's the "bees knees" so to speak.
My son is now an aircraft mechanic working on the AC-130 in Florida. If he had gone Army, I might have disowned him (not really) LOL!
My husband was an administrative specialist but he worked in intel during his first assignment at Eielson. It was during the height of the Cold War and he has some pretty cool stories.
Air Force intel assignment in Alaska during the Cold War? I bet he does have some cool stories.
My Cold War Army mission was to rain hell down on the Fulda Gap if Russia ever decided to invade Western Europe and started pouring through it.
Needless to say nothing like that ever happened, and almost all of the time we were in garrison, so I don't really have any Cold War specific stories, myself. I did get to drink a lot of German beer, though. We even had beer in the soda machines in the barracks, which does seem a bit excessive in an already beer-drenched country now that I think about it. It sure seemed cool at the time, though.
I have cool stories, too, because that was my first assignment. I didn't work in anything as glamorous as intel, but my job was very interesting and I got to do cool stuff.
Mags,
You article can only stay in News and Politics if you remove the personal stuff out of it.. you can't squeeze in meta in an article and then call it N&P.
I understand that now. Thank you.
I have a couple questions about this article.
There is a glaring error in the title. Why is that not corrected 24 hours later?
There is ONE sentence in the article that allegedly makes it meta. Why wasn't that one sentence simply removed?
The Pledge Of Allegiance is a ritual, intended to foster a cohesive and common culture of love of country. I see nothing wrong with it for grammar school use. By the time kids get into high school we should be more encouraging kids to think for themselves.
I see no particular point in arguing about it at all though, other than as an intellectual exercise.
When I say the Pledge of Allegiance I recite it the way I first learned it as a child. There was no "God" in it at that time. It was;
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
That is the only way that I say the pledge of allegiance. The original author of the pledge did not intend to make it a religious pledge in any way, so that people of all beliefs would be free to pledge their allegiance to their country.
Just my own personal preference. It does not make me any less a patriotic American.
I'm a little younger than you i guess. It's always been "under God" for me but i have no problem if folks don't want to say it that way.
It's a free country and we've all got bigger fish to fry.
It's a free country and we've all got bigger fish to fry.
Yep. One of the first things I learned by heart to recite when I was just a tadpole, was the Pledge of Allegiance. I think I was 3-4 y/o. My Father, Grandfather and Great-Grandfather were all Disabled Veterans of WWII, and very patriotic. Thus, my Brother and I were taught the Pledge of Allegiance early on. After they changed it to 'under God', I saw no reason to change it on my end.
When I was old enough to go to school, the Teacher tried to make me say the Pledge with 'under God', and I refused. That is not how I learned it, and I saw no reason to bring religion into it. Being as we had to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school, I always said it my way under my breath. I give my allegiance to my Country, not to God. God is an entirely different matter that has nothing to do with my country to me.
Again, just my own preference.
I used to do that until I realized I was still participating in forced nationalism. So now I just remain seated and stay silent. That pisses off the wingnuts more than anything.
"Under garments" is a nice substitution too.
And, a lot of other people.
Such folks sound rather fragile and unsupportive of basic civil rights. Compulsive speech isn't free speech, and these ritualistic display of knee-jerk nationalism are offensive to anyone who really values the constitution.
Nor is it a surprise that theocrats support compulsive nationalism.
I usually went to the concession stand before the christo-fascist affirmation rituals began.
I'll never be as special as you are. Bless your heart.
We weren't compelled.
I remember Daddy going around hauling junk metal and taking it to a drop off station to be used in the war. I remember (I was so little) trying to knit to make mufflers for the soldiers overseas. Sending letters and cards to them. I remember Mother answering the knock on the backdoor and that person was hungry....she always found something. I remember the blackouts...the neighborhood watch. I didn't understand most of it, but it is in my memory. The WPA came in. The papermill closed down....the Town's livelihood. We lost our home1 Parents left us with grandparents as they went off to n.O. looking for work. They took welding exams at shipyards...so many people looking for work.
We believed in America. My Dad said it would get better and it did. And, when FDR announced on the radio that the war was over us little kids tore up newspapers and threw them on to cars passing. As poor as we were, My Mom and Dad never stopped believing in America.
Who is online
91 visitors
I love our Country!
Article is categorized incorrectly, it's meta bullshit, not News and Politics.
I disagree. The majority of Mags' article is about the US Pledge of Allegiance and people in general, not NewsTalkers.
Funny, the article headline is about the pledge of alliance, whatever the fuck that is.
Didn't know that I was a ultra liberal. I love to learn something new every day.
So, the adult thing to do would be to ignore it. Your petty remarks are unwarranted.
Deleted, Skirting {SP}
That is why I totally ignore you. Since you were the first to notice it, I left it like that on purpose. Gave you something to talk about. Deleted, skirting {SP}
FTR, this article should be in Heated debate or Metafied, please move it {SP}
Bless your heart!
This comment takes the article out of the realm of "news and politics".
For the record, Bad Fish deleted the offensive remark, as a violation, shortly after you flagged it. That was over 48 hours ago and at least 24 hours before you wrote about it here again.
I removed all of the subsequent remarks in that article where you kept repeating it. SP